Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

NEW WRIT.

For the Borough of Dudley, in the room of Temporary-Lieutenant Dudley Barnato Joel, R.N.V.R., killed in action. —[Mr. James Stuart.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

EBBW VALE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCILBILL [Lords.]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ICELANDIC DETAINEES' RELEASE.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what place the Communist member of the Icelandic Parliament has been deported; and whether, in view of the changed situation, steps will be taken to restore him to his home and also to raise the ban placed upon the daily paper, "Thjodviljinn"?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): In deference to the wishes of the Icelandic Government, His Majesty's Government have agreed to release all Icelandic nationals at present held in detention in this country for engaging in activities affecting the security of His Majesty's Forces in Iceland. Release will be effected as soon as the arrangements for their return to Iceland have been made. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

Mr. Gallacher: I think that answer is very satisfactory.

Mr. Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman say under what powers the arrests and detentions in this country were effected?

Mr. Eden: I cannot, without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — SWEDEN AND FINLAND.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make about the position of Sweden and Finland; and whether he will make it clear that in the final peace settlement the actions of those who have directly or indirectly assisted the enemy will be taken into account?

Mr. Eden: I have at present nothing to add to the answers which I gave to Questions last week on the subject of our relations with Sweden and Finland.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman not make it perfectly clear that people cannot have it both ways, and that at the peace settlement we shall remember those who have been our friends and not forget those who have lined up with the enemy?

Mr. Eden: I think it is a good rule to deal with the future when that time comes.

Mr. Hannah: Is it not most necessary, in this matter, to keep an eye on American opinion?

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on relations with Finland and on the treatment by the Finnish Government of British subjects in Finland, including the 120 British volunteers who left this country to help Finland last year?

Mr. Eden: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave on 2nd July about the relations of His Majestys Government with Finland. Apart from a few incidents, which appear to have been due to the presence or activities of German armed forces in Finland, I have received no complaints regarding the treatment by the Finnish Government of British subjects in that country. The Finnish authorities have now at their own expense arranged for the transfer of the British volunteers to Sweden, where they arrived safely on 1st July.

Mr. Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information that Finnish armed forces, by the authority of their Government, are fighting side by side with German forces against Russia on Russian territory; whether His Majestys Consul-General in Helsinki has been compelled


by the Finnish Government to quit Finland; and whether he has any statement to make as to the relations between Finland and Great Britain?

Mr. Eden: Finnish forces have taken part in hostilities on Soviet territory. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative. As regards the third part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to a similar Question by the hon. Member on 2nd July.

Mr. Silverman: Are we to understand, from that answer, that Finland is now acting as an ally of Germany in the war proceeding between Germany and Russia, and that His Majestys Government have no comment whatever to make on that fact?

Mr. Eden: I shall be quite content if the hon. Member will understand the position that I have previously set out.

Mr. Hannah: Does my right hon. Friend realise the enormous importance of the Scandinavian population in the most isolationist part of the United States?

Mr. Neil Maclean: What becomes of the Prime Minister's statement that he who is not with us is against us?

Mr. Eden: I do not see any incompatibility between that statement and the one I have made.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. P. G. WODEHOUSE (BROADCASTS, GERMANY).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make with reference to the release from internment in Germany of Mr. P. G. Wodehouse and the arrangement for him to give a weekly broadcast from Germany to the United States of America?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government have seen with regret the report that Mr. Wodehouse has lent his services to the German propaganda machine.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman take such steps as are available to him, by broadcasting or other means, to bring to the attention of Mr. Wodehouse and others the grave peril in which they

place themselves by playing the Nazi game during the war?

Mr. Eden: I will certainly have in mind the hon. Member's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARCHITECTURE (FILM).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the circumstances under which permission was refused recently for a film made by the British Council about British architecture to be shown to a representative audience of the Royal Institute of British Architects; and whether, in view of the interest which such a body takes in a matter of this kind, the decision can be reviewed?

Mr. Eden: The British Council received no request from the Royal Institute of British Architects to show to them its film on British architecture, but would of course be glad to do so at any time. The film was financed entirely from public funds.

Mr. Mander: Were the Royal Institute of British Architects consulted at all in the preparation of this film?

Mr. Eden: That is another question. There has obviously been some misunderstanding here, and I hope my answer will clear the matter up.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENT, SHANGHAI.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are contemplated to secure adequate supplies of rice for the poor classes in the Inter national. Settlement, at prices within their reach; and whether he will represent to the Japanese Government that their policy of buying-up and exporting to Japan all visible supplies of rice, is depriving the working classes in Shanghai of their only means of subsistence?

Mr. Eden: While this is primarily a matter for the Shanghai Municipal Council to take up with the Japanese authorities direct, I have asked for a report on the present position.

Sir A. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the price has gone up in this district by 700 per cent., and that rice is a necessary commodity to the Chinese?,

Mr. Eden: Yes, I know that the position is a serious one.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken to secure an adequate supply of coal for the power station in Shanghai, upon which the industries of the International Settlement depend, in view of the danger to British interests should coal supplies be insufficient?

Mr. Eden: There has been some shortage of shipping in Far Eastern waters, which has led to difficulties being experienced by the Shanghai Power Company in maintaining stocks of coal. I understand, however, that the Company has succeeded in chartering a number of neutral vessels and that negotiations are now proceeding in respect of others.

BRITISH CO-OPERATION.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the recent recognition of the puppet regime at Nanking by Germany and her Axis associates, he has any statement to make on the relations between His Majesty's Government and the National Government of China at Chungking?

Mr. Eden: The development referred to by my hon. Friend will make no difference to the Far Eastern policy of His Majesty's Government, which is based on the recognition of the Government at Chungking as the legitimate National Government of China. On 7th July the Chinese entered on the fifth year of their indomitable resistance, and I am happy to take this opportunity of repeating the assurance I recently gave in this House that His Majesty's Government will continue in the future as in the past to do what they can to help China to maintain her independence.

Mr. Noel-Baker: May I hope that the Foreign Secretary will transmit that message to the Chinese Government with the assurance that it has the warmest support of all parties in the House?

Mr. Eden: indicated assent.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA.

Mr. Martin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any

formal agreement or alliance with the Soviet Government with regard to the prosecution of the war or the conclusion of peace is in contemplation?

Mr. Eden: I do not think there is anything I can usefully add to the declarations of policy made by the Prime Minister in his broadcast on 22nd June, and in my statement, to this House on 24th June.

Mr. Martin: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that relations with Russia are proceeding satisfactorily?

Mr. Eden: Yes, I have just had the privilege of meeting the Russian Military Mission myself.

Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that alliances between this and other countries do not always work very well?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN SERVICE (REFORMS).

Mr. Martin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he proposes to introduce legislation for his reforms of the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service before the Recess?

Mr. Eden: As I informed the House on nth June, the details of the reforms have to be worked out, and I shall not be in a position to ask for the approval of the House for any financial measures involved before the Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUDOLF HESS.

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affair, whether he has seen the supplement to a review of the Foreign Press, Series A., No. 86, on Rudolf Hess, published by the Foreign Research and Press Service, of Chatham House; and what steps he is taking in view of the fact that it is undesirable that a statement so sympathetic to Hess should be published by a Government-subsidised organisation?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. But I would point out that the views expressed in the Supplement to which the hon. Member refers are the views of the German Press and not of the Foreign Research and Press Service.

Colonel Gretton: Is it a fact, as alleged in the Question, that Chatham House is supported by Government subsidy?

Mr. Eden: I think the Foreign Research and Press Service is; but the point is, of course, that what they were doing was quoting the German Press.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY AND RUMANIA.

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make it clear that the Government's policy of opposition to the rule of Quislings in enemy-controlled countries applies also to rulers who have gone over to support Hitler, such as Horthy and Antonescu, as well as those whom Hitler has placed in power?

Mr. Eden: By their decision to break off relations with Hungary and Rumania, His Majesty's Government have shown their attitude towards these countries and their rulers.

Mr. Parker: Is it not time that our propaganda to Hungary ceased to support Admiral Horthy, and that it should ask the people of Hungary to overthrow his Government?

Mr. Noel-Baker: May I press the Foreign Secretary? Is it not intolerable that our propaganda should be lending a good deal of support to a regime which is not only extremely reactionary, but which has consistently worked with the warmongers?

Mr. Eden: I think it is perfectly plain that we have no need, as a Government, to show any tenderness whatever either to Admiral Horthy or the present head of the Rumanian State.

Mr. Mander: Will the Foreign Secretary make representations to the B.B.C.?

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION (SPARE PARTS).

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production since what date it has been an instruction to persons responsible for production graphs and statistics of production that no aeroplane shall be counted unless there are produced, at the same time, the appropriate tools and spare parts?

The Minister of Aircraft Production (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): Spare parts for aircraft are ordered separately on an entirely different delivery schedule from the aeroplane. They are not required to be delivered concurrently with the aeroplane nor are they delivered to the same destination. It is, therefore, impracticable to adopt production statistics in the form mentioned in the Question, and I must apologise to my hon. Friend for any misunderstanding caused by the reply to his Supplementary on a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. Ellis Smith), on 1st July, 1941. It may allay any misgiving my hon. Friend may have on this point if I assure him that, in assessing the production capacity of firms, we allocate an adequate percentage of that capacity to the production of spares.

Mr. Thorne: Can the Minister say whether any component parts find their way to this country from other countries

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH END HOUSE, FULHAM (DISPOSSESSED TENANTS).

Dr. Edith Summerskill: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings whether, when negotiating with Plus Flats, Limited, the landlords of North End House, and arranging with them for alternative accommodation for dispossessed tenants, he required any assurance that the terms for tenants getting such accommodation should not be made harsher than the terms obtaining before the requisitioning began?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works and Buildings (Mr. Hicks): In order to assist the tenants of North End House who are being dispossessed, discussions have taken place with the landlords, and it is understood that they are prepared to offer such tenants flats in North End House at a reduction.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in at least two cases of these dispossessed tenants, the landlords have asked for an increase of £20 a year in rent, in spite of the assurances of the hon. Gentleman? Why have his Department not guarded against this exploitation?

Mr. Hicks: It is not the job of my Department to negotiate these matters; but, as I said, discussions have taken place with a view to assisting. I am credibly informed that the landlords offered a reduction of 20 per cent. on pre-war rents.

Oral Answers to Questions — DECEASED NAVY PERSONNEL (BURIAL).

Mr. J. Henderson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the practice when seamen lose their lives in the performance of their naval duties and whose bodies are subsequently recovered in this country, to convey the bodies to the home station of the men, free of charge to their relatives; and why such practice was not carried out in the case of Seaman Reed of Carlisle, particulars of which case have been forwarded to him?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Victor Warrender): When it is possible to meet the relatives' wishes in this matter, the cost of conveyance is borne by the Admiralty. I am afraid, however, that under war conditions it is often impracticable for bodies of deceased naval personnel to be sent home for private burial. There are transport and administrative difficulties, and sometimes immediate interment is necessary. Able Seaman Reed's body was recovered in Cornwall, and the naval authorities had no option in this case but to arrange immediately for local burial. Free travelling facilities to enable them to visit the grave have been offered to his parents.

Mr. Henderson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the refusal of the Admiralty to allow the body to be brought home for burial has caused a great deal of bitter comment in the locality?

Sir V. Warrender: I hope that my hon. Friend will do what he can to appease those sentiments. This was a very special case. It was quite impossible to forward the body for burial at home; it had to be interred as soon as possible.

Mr. Henderson: Did not the Department agree to exhume the body and send it home if the relatives would pay for the transport?

Sir V. Warrender: I believe that that is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA.

VENEREAL DISEASE.

Dr. Morgan: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the venereal diseases clinic at Kings ton, Jamaica, there are different departments for adults of different sexes and also for children; and whether children proved diseased, are sent away for treatment in approved institutions or treated periodically at the clinic with family attendants?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): There are different departments for males and females, but the Governor states that, owing to lack of space and staff, there are not separate departments for children. There are no special facilities in the hospitals for treating children suffering from these diseases, and the great majority of infected children are treated at the clinic as out-patients. The Governor reports that it is not the general rule for a child attending the clinic to be accompanied by an adult member of the family, except on first visit. My Noble Friend does not regard this position as satisfactory, and he is taking up the whole matter with the Governor of Jamaica.

Dr. Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman see that adequate arrangements are made for the treatment of children suffering from these diseases in the West Indian Islands?

Mr. Hall: This is one of the matters being taken up at present.

Dr. Morgan: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, how many clinics for the diagnosis and treatment of venereal diseases exist in Jamaica; how many full-time medical officers are engaged; what proportion of the population are recorded as seeking available treatment from such clinics in comparison with the estimated number of persons infected in the Colony; whether statistics are avail able for the information of Members as to the number of cases voluntarily submit ting themselves for clinic treatment; and whether any extension of treatment facilities is at present contemplated?

Mr. Hall: As the answer is a lengthy one and contains figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

There are three clinics for the treatment of venereal diseases in Jamaica, situated at Kingston, Montego Bay and Port Antonio. Four full-time and two part-time medical officers are attached to the Kingston clinic and one part-time medical officer to each of the other two clinics. The Governor states that it is impossible to estimate the proportion of those infected who seek treatment at the clinics. It is known, however, that an exceedingly small proportion of cases ever seek competent medical treatment in the early stage. The greater percentage only do so if late unpleasant complications develop.

The following numbers of new cases were admitted to the clinics in 1940:

Male.
Female.


Kingston:


Gonorrhea
2,691
4,051


Syphilis
1,624
2,190


Montego Bay:


Gonorrhea
1,056
1,104


Syphilis
504
448


port Antonio:


Gonorrhea
800
506


Syphilis
758
489

As regards the last part of the Question, the Governor reports that a temporary clinic at Kingston public hospital is equipped but is not in operation owing to the lack of staff. Clinics are also planned for Spanish Town, St. Anne's Bay, Falmouth, Savanna-La-Mar, Black River and Mandeville, when funds are available.

DETENTION (MR. W. A. DOMINGO).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any further information respecting the internment of Wilfrid Domingo, who was taken from a ship on voyage from New York to Kingston; whether any charge has been brought against him; and whether he is considered to have been engaged in subversive activity?

Mr. Riley: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information regarding the arrest and internment, in Jamaica, of Mr. W. A. Domingo, the President of the West Indies National Council; and can he state the grounds on which the arrest and internment have been made?

Mr. George Hall: The Governor of Jamaica has reported that he ordered the detention of Mr. Domingo on 17th June, and that he was taken into custody on his arrival in Jamaica from America. Mr. Domingo has been detained under the Defence Regulations, because the Governor is satisfied that his detention is necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public safety and defence. Dr. Domingo has, of course, the right to make an objection to his detention to the Advisory Committee appointed by the Governor under the Regulations.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that this man was not engaged in any subversive activity, that the matter has caused considerable resentment in America and elsewhere, and that until the man is released there will continue to be, in the West Indies and elsewhere, this feeling against the authorities?

Sir Leonard Lyle: Is it not better to trust the man on the spot, the Governor?

Mr. Creech Jones: Will my hon. Friend give the closest attention to this detention, in view of the integrity of this person and of the excellent work he has done in the United States and of the fact that there is no ground whatever for any suggestion of disloyalty?

Mr. David Adams: Before this person is indefinitely interned, should he not be brought to trial?

Mr. Hall: In reply to the three supplementary questions, the information received at the Colonial Office is that this man was engaged in anti-British activities. He has the right to make an objection against his detention, and that, I think, is the proper course for him to take.

Mr. Stephen: Arising out of that—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Stephen: But this is a very important matter.

Mr. Speaker: Most questions are considered important, but it is a mistaken idea that supplementary questions may be unlimited.

CONSTITUTION.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Director of Education in Jamaica is taking an active part in encouraging hostility to the new constitution; whether steps will be taken to prevent any civil servant displaying such partiality; whether he has received any amending proposals from the People's National Party; and whether progress is being made in the public consideration of the proposed constitutional changes?

Mr. George Hall: I have no information on the first part of the Question and shall be glad if my hon. Friend will let me know on what he bases his allegation. My Noble Friend is asking the Governor of Jamaica for a report on the last two parts of the Question, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend on receipt of his reply.

Mr. Sorensen: Would it be in order for a Director of Education, or some other civil servant in a similar position, to take an active part, one way or the other, in connection with the proposals of the new constitution?

Mr. Hall: I should say, no. I am awaiting with interest any information which my hon. Friend can send me to bear out the allegations which are made.

Dr. Morgan: Is it not a fact that under the present system in the West Indies officials must take part in politics and make statements? Would it not be wise to change the form of Government there?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRINIDAD (MISS KATHLEEN DONELLAN).

Dr. Morgan: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received from the Colony of Trinidad any information as to the death by drowning of Miss Kathleen Donellan, the Irish school-teacher, and the circumstances of her escape from her internment camp; whether the internment camp of her detention was in one of the satellite islands of the Colony or on the island itself; whether the offer of release made to this lady, on 26th May last, was conditional; and, if so, what were the conditions imposed?

Mr. George Hall: The Governor of Trinidad has reported that Miss Donellan escaped from the internment camp some time on the night of 23rd June, and was found drowned, near the harbour, at noon on 24th June. The verdict of the coroner's inquest was that the cause of death was asphyxia from drowning, that she committed suicide, and that there was no ground for suspecting that any person is guilty of felony in respect of such death. The coroner found that she had made an attempt before the actual drowning to take her own life by the infliction of certain wounds. It was also disclosed at the inquest for the first time that she had twice attempted suicide during the three months prior to her death. An inquiry made by the Commissioner of Police has established that sentries were properly posted, and that the fences of the camp were properly illuminated. Miss Donellan apparently escaped between the visits of a patrol sentry, at a point where a post in the inner fence had sagged and allowed the wire to be drawn apart sufficiently for a small person to get through.
As regards the second part of the Question, the camp was situated in Port of Spain in Trinidad. As regards the third part of the Question, Miss Donellan was informed that the order for her detention could not be revoked unless she left the Colony to return to Eire, and she replied that she was not prepared to return to that country.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIES (SURPLUS FOODSTUFFS).

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether similar arrangements are being made in the Crown Colonies to those which have been carried out in collaboration with His Majesty's Governments in Australia and New Zealand, for the purchase and storage of surplus storable foodstuffs for use after the war; and whether he can give any particulars as to these arrangements, with special reference to palm produce, cocoa and bananas?

Mr. George Hall: Arrangements have already been made to help the Colonial Dependencies in the disposal of export surpluses arising from loss of markets and


shipping difficulties. These have not been exactly in the same form as the arrangements agreed with His Majesty's Governments in Australia and New Zealand, as conditions in the several Dependencies have varied substantially, but have been framed in the light of the same general principles, that is, the desirability of avoiding distress among producers and of accumulating stocks of storable goods against post-war needs. I will circulate a detailed statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I would mention, as regards the particular products dealt with, that there is no surplus of palm products in the Colonies, that such part of the West African cocoa crop as cannot be marketed is being stored, but that bananas are not suitable for long-term storage and the surplus in Jamaica is being utilised locally.

Following is the statement:

ACTION TAKEN BY HIS MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT TO ASSIST COLONIAL DEPENDENCIES IN THE DISPOSAL OF EXPORT SURPLUSES.

N.B.—This statement does not cover purchases of Colonial products made by His Majesty's Government for their own supply needs, where no necessity of making purchases for relief purposes has arisen, e.g., rubber, tea and West African groundnuts.

1.Bananas.
(a) On the suspension of imports into the United Kingdom arrangements were made for the marketing of the whole Jamaican crop through a common pool, and His Majesty's Government guaranteed, through the Government of Jamaica, a return of 3s. per count bunch to the grower up to a quantity of 12,000,000 stems in the year 1940–41. The potential liability so assumed was about £1,500,000; but thanks to vigorous local efforts to increase local utilisation and exports to the United States and Canada, the cost is not expected to be much more than £500,000. All bananas purchased are being either exported or used locally, e.g.. as banana flour.
(b) The difficulties of the banana plantations in the Cameroons under British Mandate (almost all of former German ownership) have been met by temporary grants by His Majesty's Government for the relief of unemployment pending the absorption of labourers in other activities.
2. Citrus Fruit.
(a) Palestine.—It was impossible to ship any of the citrus crop in 1940–41 to its normal markets in the United Kingdom and Continental Europe, and although every effort was made to increase the local and neighbouring markets, the bulk of it was unsaleable. In order to enable growers to carry on, therefore, the Palestine Government, with the approval of His Majesty's Government, has guaranteed advances to be made through the banks

against the 1941–42 crop up to an amount not exceeding £510,000. Other advances totalling £100,000 have been authorised to assist the development of other forms of agricultural production. The utilisation of part of the crop in the manufacture of ascorbic acid is planned. Oranges cannot, of course, be stored.
(b) Cyprus.—The much smaller Cyprus orange crop has been dealt with on similar lines, advances having been made to the growers by the Cyprus Government to the estimated amount of £16,500.
3. Cocoa.
The whole of the West African cocoa crop for 1939–40 and 1940–41 has been bought by His Majesty's Government at fixed prices. The marketing of the crop is now in the hands of a specially constituted West African Cocoa Control Board, and the Board has already been able to sell the greater part of the 1940–41 crop to the United Kingdom, the United States of America and other markets still remaining open. No difficulty is expected in storing in West Africa such part of the crop as remains unshipped at the end of the current season and no good quality cocoa will have to be destroyed. In 1939–40 these operations resulted in a deficit of about £250,000. It is not yet possible to give any reliable estimate of the financial results of the 1940–41 operations.
4. Cotton.
No considerable difficulty has yet been experienced in disposing of Colonial cotton production, but certain small purchases by or on behalf of His Majesty's Government are contemplated, e.g., in Tanganyika; and in other Dependencies, e.g., Nyasaland, the local Governments have been authorised to guarantee the purchase of any balance of the crop which is not sold through commercial channels.
5. Sisal.
His Majesty's Government have undertaken to purchase the whole British East African output (on a restricted basis) of 100,000 tons of sisal, in the year commencing 1st November, 1940, at an average price of £19 for. East African port. The greater part of this is expected to be needed for the United Kingdom's own supply requirements and the remainder will be sold, as may be convenient, in the United States of America, or elsewhere, or stored in East Africa for post-war use.
6. Sugar.
The whole exportable crops of the West Indies, Mauritius and East Africa have been bought for shipment to the United Kingdom or Canada. It is not expected to be possible, however, to ship any substantial part of the Fiji crop to this country and special arrangements have had to be made to deal with the surplus over what can be shipped to Western Canada. These arrangements contemplate the purchase for storage of some 30,000 to 40,000 tons, being the maximum for which storage can be provided in Fiji, and the making of additional payments to the sugar factories to enable them to purchase at the standard price


the whole of the sugar canes grown by present farmers irrespective of whether all those canes can be converted into sugar. The gross cost of these arrangements is expected to be between £600,000 and £700,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEYSHAM STEAMER SERVICE, BELFAST.

Dr. Little: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Trans port whether, as there is much dissatisfaction in certain quarters at the time of the arrival of the Heysham steamer in Belfast, he will make arrangements whereby through a speeding-up on the journey an earlier arrival of the steamer may be attained?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Colonel Llewellin): The extra time now taken on this journey is entirely due to the necessary observance of sailing instructions aimed at securing the safety of the ships and passengers.

Dr. Little: Does the Minister think it right that passengers should be compelled to wait three hours for a train coming into Heysham?

Colonel Llewellin: That, of course, is quite a different matter, and has nothing to do with the time that the ship takes.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

BRITISH INFORMATION OFFICE, ISTANBUL.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Information why the post of Director at the British Information Office at Istanbul has been left vacant since November; and will he take steps to fill this post without further delay?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Duff Cooper): This matter is still engaging the attention of the Ministry, but a suitable candidate for the post has not yet been found.

Mr. Lipson: Is the Minister aware that that answer is most unconvincing and quite unsatisfactory? Does not he attach any importance to propaganda in Turkey, and, if so, is it not inexcusable to keep a position like this vacant since last November?

Mr. Cooper: The headquarters of propaganda are at Ankara, the capital. Sir Denison Ross performed extremely useful work in Istanbul, but the House will appreciate that it is very difficult to find a man possessing the very exceptional qualities of Sir Denison Ross.

Mr. Lipson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give his personal attention to the matter and see that an appointment is made?

Mr. Cooper: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I think it is better not to make an appointment until later on rather than to make a wrong one,

ANTI-NAZI STATEMENTS (PUBLICITY).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Information, whether he will publish and have circularised in this country, the United States of America and America, and, as far as possible, through the occupied countries, and in Germany and Italy a document giving instances of, and quotations from, German and Italian ecclesiastics, writers, artists and scientists, politicians, trade unionists, statesmen and others who are known to be hostile to Nazi and Fascist policy and practice, indicating therein those who are exiles in this or other lands, those who have died or been killed during the Nazi and Fascist regimes and those who are probably in internment camps, or imprisoned, or are still at liberty?

Mr. Cooper: All possible steps are continually taken to give the widest publicity to statements of the kind referred to in the Question.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the Minister believe that a document such as I have described in my Question, if issued, would not only serve the democratic cause adequately, but would also be of some assistance to anti-Hitler Germany and to the anti-Mussolini cause?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir, but the document described in the Question would be very bulky, and probably it is better to send out small pamphlets containing some information rather than one compendium of the whole.

Mr. Sorensen: Could not some selection be made?

CENSORSHIP HEADQUARTERS, BELFAST (CANTEEN).

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Information, whether he is aware that at the censorship headquarters in Belfast there is no provision made for supplying meals to the staff, many of whom have to travel long distances, and there is no place in the immediate vicinity where food can be obtained; and whether he will make arrangements, at the earliest possible moment, to have a canteen opened for providing suitable meals for those engaged in the work of censorship?

Mr. Cooper: A report strongly recommending the establishment of a canteen was received from the Officer in Charge at Belfast a few days ago, and the matter is receiving immediate consideration.

RUSSIAN NATIONAL ANTHEM (BROADCAST).

Mr. Silverman: asked the Minister of Information by whose authority there is omitted from the National Anthems of allied and associated Powers, the playing of which precedes the nine o'clock news each Sunday, the National Anthem of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

Mr. Cooper: Only the National Anthems of those nations which are actually allied to Great Britain are played at present.

Mr. Silverman: Would the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the heroic assistance Russia is now affording to the common cause, explain to the House what further the Russian people may be expected to do before they become entitled to the same courtesies as, shall we say, Czechoslovakia?

Mr. Cooper: I explained in the answer to the Question that it is the rule which hitherto has been observed that only those National Anthems should be played of the countries which are actually allied by treaty.

Mr. Silverman: Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider the abolition of so absurd a rule?

Dr. Summerskill: Would the Minister define the term "Allies"?

Sir A. Knox: Is it possible for the Government to make a free issue of vodka to all teetotallers and see that they drink it?

Mr. Gallacher: Could not the Minister arrange to have the National Anthem of the Soviet Union sung or played in this House?

Mr. Silverman: In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (SOLDIERS, FARM WORK).

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will say how soldiers who are temporarily released for short periods for farm work are to be paid; whether allotments are to continue for the wives and families; and whether he can make any statement about transport?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Richard Law): I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the scheme whereby agricultural workers serving in the Army at home may be given special leave to return to their former farms to help at times of seasonal pressure. Pay and allowances are not admissible for this period of special leave, during which the soldier presumably draws emoluments from other sources, but in the case of other ranks, in order to avoid possible hardship, the issue of family or dependants' allowance is continued. My hon. and gallant Friend will realise, however, that since the soldier is not entitled to emoluments from Army funds during this period, family and dependants' allowance so issued will be debited to his account. Personnel granted agricultural leave are given free return railway warrants to their place of work.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Can my hon. Friend say how the farmers are to pay these men; are they to pay direct to them or into some fund; will he consider any cases where there may be hardship to the soldier's family; and what is the position of men who are released for perhaps one or two days to work on farms in their own immediate neighbourhood?

Mr. Law: My answer was directed to cases where soldiers were given leave up to 28 days to go back to their former farms. In regard to cases where soldiers are released for one day, where circum-


stances permit, they receive no pay from a civil source, except liquid refreshment; the ordinary pay and family allowances to the soldier are continued.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Will the farmers have to pay anything?

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: This is most important, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL RATIONING (JOURNEY RECORDS).

Sir L. Lyle: asked the Secretary for Petroleum whether, with regard to the proposed use of inspectors to examine the log-books or similar documents showing the use of supplementary petrol coupons by motorists, this arrangement will require the requisitioning of premises; what number of men or women will be employed, especially in view of the need of man-power at the present time; what will be the cost to the country; and whether, in order to secure petrol economy more cheaply and efficiently, a further reduction will be made in the number of petrol coupons issued?

The Secretary for Petroleum (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Such examination of records of journeys as may be necessary will be carried out by the administrative staff of the Divisional Petroleum Offices. No additional premises or staff will be required for this purpose.

Sir L. Lyle: Is not the whole scheme quite unworkable, unless by the expenditure of considerable man-power, and this man-power is the very point that Ministers are constantly telling us is the crux of the whole war situation?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot add to the reply.

Mr. Crowder: Will my hon. Friend consider withdrawing the scheme unless he is satisfied that it will really be of some use?

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Will the Minister consider withdrawing the basic ration altogether, so that police officers may check up on what is actually used of the supplementary ration?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the basic ration performs a most useful function.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

MINERS' ATTENDANCE BONUS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction in every mining district over the conditions applying to the payment of the attendance bonus of is. per day; that the good will and co-operation necessary in the industry are being retarded through this; and will he consider getting the Essential Work Order rules applied to the payment of the is. a day as this would help to remove the difficulty now obtaining?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): I am aware that a number of questions have arisen, and in my opinion the best method of dealing with them is by discussion between the two sides in the industry. In regard to my hon. Friend's suggestion, I would point out that both the guaranteed weekly wage under the Essential Work Order and the shilling a shift additional pay were intended by the Government to encourage attendance at work and were made conditional upon the avoidance of unnecessary absenteeism.

Mr. Tinker: Is my hon. Friend aware of the feeling prevailing with regard to the attendance bonus of is. per day, that if a man loses on? day the bonus for the whole of the preceding days is lost; and that, if he wants to develop the work in the mines, he should try to remove that feeling, when the problem would probably be settled?

Mr. Grenfell: We are suggesting that the good will of both sides should be secured by meetings of both sides, and yesterday meetings took place, though I do not know what definite results were obtained. I am hoping that the two sides will hammer out an agreement.

Mr. Tinker: Will the Minister try to get them together?

Mr. Grenfell: Yes, Sir, I have asked them to get together. We want them to meet everywhere and solve these problems.

PRICE.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure which suggests that


the increased price of 10d. per ton on coal should be met by the Government, as the present method of applying it will lead to higher production costs in basic industries; and what he intends to do in this matter?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): My right hon. Friend has considered this matter, but he does not feel that a subsidy is necessary in this particular case. In this connection I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend on 19th June and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Sir R. Blair) two days previously.

Mr. Tinker: Will consideration be given to any further increases in the price of coal and to the question of subsidies, to stop these fluctuations, which only lead to upsetting the whole thing?

Captain Crookshank: I could not answer a hypothetical question like that.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER OF STATE (DUTIES, MIDDLE EAST).

Mr. Hore-Belisha: asked the Prime Minister whether he will define the duties which the Minister of State will discharge in the Middle East, in particular, his relations with and his authority over the Commander-in-Chief, His Majesty's Ambassador in Cairo, and other representatives of this country in the Middle East, who now receive their instructions through other Government Departments; and whether the responsibilities of the' Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs, War, Air, the Colonies, and the Minister of Information, are in any way qualified by the new appointment?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): The principal tasks of the Minister of State will be, first, to facilitate the conduct of operations by the Commanders-in-Chief in the Middle East by relieving them, so far as possible, of a number of extraneous responsibilities with which they have hitherto been burdened, and, secondly, to settle promptly matters within the policy of His Majesty's Government but which involve several home departments or local authorities. The appointment of the Minister of State will not interfere with

the existing relationships between the Commanders-in-Chief in the Middle East and the Service Ministers, or between His Majesty's Ambassador, Cairo, and other representatives of His Majesty's Government in the Middle East, and the Ministers in this country to whom they are responsible. The Minister of State will make reference home whenever necessary on important issues of policy; but it is to be hoped that the presence of a War Cabinet Minister with wide discretionary powers will smooth, hasten, and concert action in the Middle East between the various authorities in that area.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: While I thank the Prime Minister for his answer, will he say whether the Minister of State has authority over the Commander-in-Chief and His Majesty's Ambassador, or whether it is entirely a matter for consultation in the smoothing-out of difficulties?

The Prime Minister: The Minister of State has authority in matters which are not concerned with the conduct of operations, but that authority is derived from his position as a member of the War Cabinet, and will no doubt be exercised in harmony with that fundamental principle.

Sir Irving Albery: With reference to the power which the Minister of State has to decide priority questions in the matter of military supplies, will not this be contingent on the operational functions of the Commander-in-Chief?

The Prime Minister: We set up some two months ago a new officer in the Middle East, General Sir Robert Haining, to whom I have applied the somewhat rare title of Intendant-General. His business is to serve the Commander-in-Chief with the largest possible measure of supplies in accordance with the wishes of the Commander-in-Chief and the needs of the Army, and also in accordance with the practical business of handling the great mass of supplies arriving from this country and the United States, and the Minister of State will have the benefit of the advice of Sir Robert Haining in anything which may touch this part of his duty. I would say that the kind of relations which I hope to see between the Minister of State and the Intendant-General on the one hand, and the Commander-in-Chief of the Army on the other, are very largely the sort of relations


which prevail in the matter of supplies between the War Office and the Ministry of Supply in this country and General Sir Alan Brooke, commanding the Army in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Thorne: Will the Minister of State be armed with plenary powers, or will he be expected to consult with the War Cabinet every now and again?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Nobody in this country has plenary powers, except in accordance with the constant supervision of Parliament, exercised through the War Cabinet.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Does the area of the Middle East Command remain exactly the same as it was, including Iraq?

The Prime Minister: I am not certain whether it has been announced, but a charge has been made in the responsibilities for the defence of Iraq, which have been transferred to the Indian Command, and will be exercised by General Wavell as Commander-in-Chief in India.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Does the Minister of State control that area?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir; he does not control any of these areas. He is in the closest touch with the Government of India, and he can communicate with them direct if he wishes, reporting at the same time to us, and I have no doubt that the closest contact will be arranged by him.

Mr. Mander: What will be the relations of the Minister of State with the representatives of the Dominions on the spot? Will he be in close contact and consultation with them?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, the relations will be of close contact with them and continuous courtesy and good will.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOSLEMS (MOSQUE AND CULTURAL CENTRE, LONDON).

Mr. Hannah: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the urgent need of making friends of Moslem countries all over the East, he will take steps to make better known the gift by the Government of a prominent London site for a mosque and institute worthy of the capital of the Empire?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this matter. I am sure that he will be glad to know that our many friends in Moslem countries all over the East have already expressed great appreciation of this gift of a site for a mosque and Islamic cultural centre in London. We shall certainly take any appropriate opportunity to keep the Moslem world informed of the progress of this most interesting project.

Mr. Hannah: While thanking the Prime Minister very cordially for that splendid answer, may I ask whether the Government realise that the Japanese, having built a mosque in Tokyo, are booming it throughout the whole Moslem world, and must not we do likewise?

The Prime Minister: I should not always set up the conduct of the Government referred to as a pattern which we must follow with unreasonable care.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (LENGTH OF SITTINGS).

Mr. Martin: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the considerable number of Members wishing to speak who have been excluded from recent Debates, he will consider moving to increase the time of sitting for Debates, especially on the larger aspects of public policy, by one hour?

The Prime Minister: I would remind my hon. Friend that the Government have extended the hours of sitting on certain occasions recently and will always be prepared to consider allowing extra time for important Debates when desired.

Mr. Leslie Boyce: Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to consider, if necessary, placing a time-limit on the speeches of hon. Members, at all events for a certain period?

The Prime Minister: That is another matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

CANNED BEEF (ALLOCATION).

Mr. McKinlay: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that a stock of canned beef, which had been damaged, and which was lying at a place of which he has been informed, was sent to Messrs.


Poulton and Noel under an order from the London Wholesale Meat Supply Association and marked Priority; how this Association operates outside its own district; and on whose order the canned beef in question was sent to the firm mentioned?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Major Lloyd George): I am aware that a parcel of canned beef was sent to Messrs. Poulton and Noel for immediate use for manufacturing purposes. This course was taken by the Ministry itself and not by the London Wholesale Meat Supply Association.

Mr. McKinlay: Is such salvage meat supplemental to the basic allowance that this manufacturing firm gets, or is it taken into consideration in the allocation of meat made available to them for manufacture?

Major Lloyd George: I would like to make sure before answering that question, but in this particular instance it was a question of dealing with this meat immediately, otherwise we would have lost it altogether. As a matter of fact this firm rendered a service in taking it when they did.

FISH (PRICES).

Mr. Jackson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that the control price of certain fish, plaice and flat fish, will be 6d. per pound more in some districts than before the control; and what steps he is taking to remedy this grievance?

Major Lloyd George: The prices prescribed for fish are maximum and not fixed prices. Their effect is to reduce substantially the cost of fish to consumers generally, and there is no reason why fish should not be sold anywhere at lower prices if local conditions are such as to make this possible.

Mr. Mathers: Why was it considered necessary to fix the price of certain fish at the maximum price prevailing prior to the control?

Major Lloyd George: That is not gene-rally so.

TOMATOES.

Mr. Jackson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he can give an assurance that the distribution of tomatoes is now working satisfactorily?

Major Lloyd George: No, Sir. The Tomato (Maximum Prices) Order was carefully designed by means of a system of differential prices to secure even distribution, but supplies are at present insufficient to meet the demand which has increased greatly since price control came into force. The position is improving daily, and further measures are now under consideration. There are, however, bound to be difficulties until supplies more nearly balance demand.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the unequal distribution throughout the country, that in some towns there are only moderate supplies while in other towns and districts there are none at all? Has his Department any plan whatever to deal with this matter?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman will look at my answer, he will see that I made it clear that we are not satisfied with distribution. I am sure he will forgive me for saying so, but it is not always as easy as some people think. The fact is that the whole of our outside supplies have been cut off, and I believe this country is producing more tomatoes this year than ever before in its history. We are doing our best to distribute them throughout the country. It is hardly the fault of the Ministry if the season is some weeks late, but we are aware of the unequal distribution in some parts of the country, and steps are being taken to try and avoid it.

Mr. Thorne: Could the Parliamentary Secretary come to Covent Garden Market with me and see that tomatoes are properly distributed?

Miss Cazalet: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that a great many shops sell tomatoes only on the promise that the buyer will take other things as well?

Major Lloyd George: That, of course, is a punishable offence if brought to our notice, but unfortunately we do not get these things brought to our notice. If people would be good enough to take action themselves, it would be of great assistance to the Ministry from the point of view of a prosecution.

Mr. John Wilmot: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that insufficient allowance


appears to have been made for the migration of population and that there are abundant supplies in migration areas and a shortage in the reception areas?

Major Lloyd George: That is not really so. A cross-section survey taken the other day showed that over 65 per cent. of retailers had tomatoes.

Mr. Denman: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food with what object the Ministry asked tomato growers in Worthing and other places not to consign tomatoes direct to Leeds but via the London market; whether he is aware that the consequent destruction of an old-establshed direct trade has unnecessarily aggravated the shortage in Leeds; that obtaining tomatoes via the London market converts a primary into a secondary wholesaler and prevents him from continuing to offer supplies to secondary wholesalers in neighbouring districts; and whether he will cease from destroying legitimate and useful processes of trade, thereby causing supplies which would otherwise have been accessible to the Leeds area to be artificially reduced?

Major Lloyd George: No such request, as is implied in the first part of the Question, has been made to growers by my Department. The latter part of the Question therefore does not arise.

NATIONAL VEGETABLE MARKETING COMPANY.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food by what method were area controllers of National Vegetable Marketing, Limited, appointed; and whether in each case the controller was nominated by the organised trade?

Major Lloyd George: The area controllers so far appointed by the National Vegetable Marketing Company were appointed by the Board of Directors as being, in their view, the individuals best qualified for the particular posts. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

BILLETED SERVICE PERSONNEL (REGISTRATION).

Sir L. Lyle: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his Department has now

worked out a system of registration for all billeted personnel; and whether he can make a statement on the subject?

Major Lloyd George: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the billeting of Navy, Army and Air Force personnel. This matter has been under discussion with representatives of the Services Departments, who have agreed a scheme for the registration of billeted personnel. Arrangements are being made to bring the scheme into operation as soon as possible.

POULTRY.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what steps are being taken to prevent the avoidance of price control over poultry for food by selling the poultry alive?

Major Lloyd George: The prescribed maximum prices for poultry for food apply equally to live poultry sold for this purpose and to dead poultry. The sale or purchase of poultry for the purpose of breeding, laying or retaining is not subject to the provisions of the Poultry (Maximum Prices) Order, 1941, provided that the purchaser makes a written declaration to the seller that the purchase is for one or other of these purposes. In some instances false declarations are given and in the event of adequate evidence being available prosecution would be initiated. Other means of preventing evasion of this provision of the Order are under active examination.

FRUIT AND VEGETABLE BLACK MARKET.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that each Maximum Price Control Order in the fruit and vegetable trade creates a new black market; that the operators of the black market, by direct purchasing from the growers, rely upon cash transactions avoiding all proper records or book entries; and what steps he is taking to exterminate this form of trading?

Major Lloyd George: I am aware that evasions of the types mentioned occur when new Maximum Price Orders are made. The enforcement staff of the Ministry which has been and will be further strengthened is taking all possible steps to deal with such offences, but it


is obviously undesirable to indicate what are the particular steps which are being taken.

Mr. Walkden: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that last week a small retailer who has only one stall and two costers' barrows by-passed the market and was able to buy 30 tons of new potatoes, whereas the Co-operative Wholesale Society in Spitalfields Market was able to obtain only 13½tons of new potatoes for over 1,000,000 of their customers for one week? What action is he proposing to take?

Major Lloyd George: If the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to let me have those particulars, it would be helpful towards taking some action.

Mr. Walkden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether any persons operating the fruit and vegetable black market have been prosecuted; and how many convictions have been obtained?

Major Lloyd George: Since the outbreak of war up to the end of May, 1941, there have been 1,893 prosecutions for offences against the various Orders relating to fruit and vegetables, and 1,844 cases have resulted in conviction. It is not possible to say how many of these cases fell within the decription "black market."

Mr. Walkden: Have they not been associated with the wholesale market or with growers, as indicated on the Control of Prices Order, and is the policy in selecting inspectors that of the three wise monkeys, who see no evil, speak no evil and hear no evil?

NATIONAL WHEATMEAL BREAD.

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that half a slice of bread a day saved by every man, woman and child, would provide in the course of a year shipping space for sufficient steel to make 10,000 25-ton tanks; and whether he will therefore take more active steps to encourage the use of the national loaf, which is more nourishing and more satisfying than white bread?

Major Lloyd George: Steps have already been taken to advertise national wheatmeal bread in the daily Press, and, with the co-operation of the baking trade,

a special National Wheatmeal Week will be held in London during the week beginning 21st July. Further steps to draw the attention of the public to the importance of increasing the consumption of national wheatmeal bread are under consideration.

Sir S. Reed: While I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for that information, would he be so good as to check the returns he receives in his own bread department as to the availability of this loaf?

Major Lloyd George: I will certainly do that, although, of course, we do get information constantly on the situation with regard to this loaf. The practice is that where people want the loaf and cannot get it, if they apply to us, we do our best to see that they do get it.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Would my hon. and gallant Friend ask the medical profession throughout the country to help in this matter, because they would be glad to do so?

Sir William Davison: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that there is a good deal of misunderstanding as to what actually is the national loaf? People know about brown bread and white bread but do not know about this national bread.

PIGS.

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what is the average wastage per pig between the killing centre and the bacon factory; and what percentage of wastage is the Is. 6d. designed to cover?

Major Lloyd George: Bacon pigs are killed at the bacon factory. The first part of my hon. Friend's Question, therefore, does not arise. The amount of Is. 6d. referred to in the second part of my hon. Friend's Question is taken, presumably, from the scale of allowances ranging from 6d. to 4s. per pig according to the distance from collecting centre to place of slaughter, made in respect of shrinkage attributable to the varying distances involved. These allowances adopted by the Ministry are on a similar basis to, but at somewhat higher rates than those in the scales determined by the Bacon Development Board before the war.

Sir W. Smithers: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that experts are of the opinion that the amount of wastage


between the collecting centre and the killing centre should be about 2 per cent., whereas it is in fact between 5 per cent. and 6 per cent.? Who reaps the benefit; and will he make sure that it is not the bacon curer?

Major Lloyd George: There is little difference between the present procedure and that laid down before the war. The bacon pig is killed at the bacon factory, and obviously if it has to travel large distances, it suffers a loss of weight according to the weight and type of pig, the duration of the journey, and so on.

Sir W. Smithers: Will my hon. and gallant Friend make further inquiries?

BRITISH RESTAURANT, WHADDON HOUSING ESTATE.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether approval can now be given to the proposals put up by the Borough of Cheltenham for the erection of a dining hall for a British restaurant on the Whaddon housing estate, as further delay will add to the cost of building and equipment, and there is great need for a British restaurant in the district?

Major Lloyd George: Approval was given on 28th April last for a scheme for a British restaurant on the Whaddon housing estate. Difficulties in connection with the supply of steel and timber for the new building required have since arisen and have been under discussion with the Ministry of Works and Buildings. I have arranged for a meeting to be held at Cheltenham immediately with a view to reaching agreement so that the work may proceed without further delay.

YOUTH CLUBS.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will permit clubs, approved by local youth committees for the purpose, to secure adequate rations for morning and evening meals?

Major Lloyd George: Members of youth clubs are in many cases employed at factories and works provided with canteens at which they are able to obtain meals in addition to those taken at home. My Noble Friend could not agree that rationed foods should be supplied for youth clubs.

Mr. Lindsay: Would the Parliamentary Secretary reconsider his decision, because it is having the effect of nullifying the good work done by another Department towards education? Surely these young people are entitled to have their proper rations.

Major Lloyd George: I shall be glad to reconsider the matter. I am, of course, in close touch with the Board of Education.

EMERGENCY FEEDING.

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will simplify and clarify all previous Circulars sent to local authorities on the related subjects of British Restaurants, emergency feeding, food and rest centres and school meals; and whether he will make counties and county boroughs the operating authorities for all four services, with proper powers of delegation where necessary?

Major Lloyd George: The suggestion contained in the first part of my hon. Friend's Question has already been carried out. I am sending him a copy of a Circular issued to County Councils on nth June last and would call his attention especially to the memorandum enclosed with that Circular. The suggestion made in the last part of my hon. Friend's Question is, I regret, not practicable.

Mr. Lindsay: I have read the Circular of nth June, and it is that Circular to which I am referring. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that it created greater complications in the case of some of the local authorities, and that it is still quite impossible for a county borough with 50,000 people to know which is the right Department to deal with the four types of emergency feeding?

Major Lloyd George: Surely, the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that, allowing for all the difficulties, emergency feeding has been done extremely well on the whole.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SKILLED OFFICER).

Mr. Lindsay: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will recommend the scheme now operating in Kensington, where all statutory and voluntary effort is properly co-ordinated, and a paid and skilled officer is given executive responsibility?

Major Lloyd George: I am aware of the arrangements for providing meals to which presumably my hon. Friend refers, in the Royal Borough of Kensington. I am always willing to encourage local authorities to employ the services of a skilled officer to superintend such arrangements when the employment of such an officer is justified by the extent of the arrangements.

SMALL SHOPS (SUPPLIES).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether it is proposed to deprive small shops of supplies where the number of rationed customers is below 25; whether the proposal is to apply equally to branches of large stores; and to what type of shop those customers will be transferred?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir. Retailers, including branches of large stores, who have not more than 25 registrations for a rationed commodity, will not be permitted to sell that commodity. The customers affected will be allowed to reregister with the retailer of their choice who has the necessary number of registered customers.

Mr. Davies: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the automatic consequence of this decision will be detrimental to the small shops and increase the trade of the big stores?

Major Lloyd George: I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates as much as anybody else that in present circumstances the need for economic distribution and saving in transport of foodstuffs makes it necessary that this action should be taken. If he will look into the matter, I think he will find that there are comparatively few shops with less than 25 registrations.

Mr. Stephen: Will any compensation be arranged for the small shops?

Major Lloyd George: I do not know what sort of compensation the hon. Member has in mind, but if he will look into the matter, he will see that it will affect relatively few people. I may point out that one man with fewer than 25 registrations for cheese, for example, has in the past had to be sent from the wholesaler small parcels of 2½lbs. of cheese.

Mr. McKinlay: What will happen in the case of those firms which have not so far troubled with registrations and counter-

foils, and which have no registered customers for any commodities? Will it be open to them to start having registrations now, whereas people who have had these worries up to now will have to go off the list?

Major Lloyd George: I would not like to answer that question without notice, but obviously if somebody has not troubled to have any rationed commodities so far, I do not see why he should come into it now.

CANNED FOODS (PRICE STAMPING).

Mr. Jackson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what are the reasons why the stamping of the retail price on tins of fruit and vegetables is considered impracticable by his Department?

Major Lloyd George: The stamping of can ends should be avoided as far as possible in order to avoid damage to the tin-plate, or, in the case of lacquer cans, to the internal coating of lacquer. Further, the sizes of cans have been standardised to a considerable extent and the same type of can may therefore be used as the container for more than one class of foodstuff. It is possible also that it will be necessary to change the price of a canned commodity between the time of embossing the cans and the date of sale.

CONDEMNED MEAT, BIRMINGHAM.

Mr. Higgs: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that approximately 1,000 carcases, cows, sheep, pigs, etc., were allowed to go bad and had to be destroyed by incinerator in Birmingham on or about Monday, 23rd June; that Irish beasts slaughtered in Liverpool were delivered to Birmingham butchers, green, a week later; and what steps does he intend to take to prevent further losses of this description?

Major Lloyd George: As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to my Reply to the hon. Member for Deritend (Sir Smedley Crooke). In regard to the slaughter of Irish beasts at Liverpool, at the time complained of no Irish cattle were being sent over alive to this country. Meat was received from Eire some of which was not in good condition. Representations were made to the Eire Government with a view


to an improvement in the condition of the meat being effected. The situation has now substantially altered by the recent decision to re-admit the import of live cattle from Eire.

Mr. Higgs: The Minister has not referred to the first part of my Question about carcases.

Major Lloyd George: Perhaps my hon. Friend will wait, because the next Question deals with that matter.

Sir Smedley Crooke: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether his attention has been drawn to the waste of human food in the City of Birmingham recently when a number of cattle, cows, lambs, pigs and calves had to be destroyed by incinerator, on 23rd June, owing to the neglect or otherwise of an official of the Ministry, in spite of the fact that there is ample refrigerator accommodation in Birmingham for this purpose; what steps he intends to take to prevent a recurrence of this waste; and what action he proposes to take to punish the officer responsible for it?

Major Lloyd George: I have made inquiries and I find that 8,575 lbs. of meat were condemned at the Birmingham Central Meat Market and in retail shops on 23rd, 24th and 25th June as the result of a kill on Saturday, 21st June. It is the usual procedure to slaugher at the Birmingham Central Meat Market on a Saturday for distribution on a Monday. On 21st June about 300 lambs and a number of cattle and other stock were slaughtered for distribution on the following Monday. The meat was examined on the Sunday morning by a Ministry official and was found to be in good condition. Unfortunately a severe thunderstorm occurred on the Sunday night and on the Monday it was found that a number of the lamb carcases had been affected by the weather and portions were condemned as unfit for human consumption. The beef carcases were not affected. The whole of the offals had already been distributed fresh on the Saturday morning. The position was made specially difficult by the fact that the refrigerators at the market were full. The result of inquiries does not show that any official was to blame. The loss was due entirely to the weather.

Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware that there are refrigerators in private ownership throughout Birmingham, a list of which is now in the hands of the authorities, for cases of this description? Why is it they were not used?

Major Lloyd George: For reasons which I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate, I cannot go into that. There are many cold-storage firms which are not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

HOUSEHOLD SALVAGE.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply the quantity of household salvage collected in the month of May in North Cumberland and Durham, respectively?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The quantities of salvage material sold by all the local authorities in Northumberland and Durham in the month of May, 1941, were £3,483 and £4,265, respectively.

CONTRACTS.

Mr. Salt: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply whether he will instruct his officials who issue contracts, to notify manufacturers of further requirements in sufficient time to ensure a continuous flow of work, thereby avoiding the unnecessary dismissal of employees and reduction of out put?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: Every endeavour is made to place contracts in such a way that the manufacturers are provided with a continuous flow of work and further measures to ensure this are continually being made. My hon. Friend will realise that, on account of the fluctuation in demand due to changes in the strategy of the war, no absolute guarantee of continuous orders can be given.

Mr. Salt: If I bring certain facts to the attention of the Minister, will he kindly look into them?

Mr. Macmillan: indicated assent.

PRODUCTION STATISTICS.

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply whether it is an instruction to per-


sons responsible for production graphs and statistics of production that no tank shall be counted unless there are produced, at the same time, the appropriate tools and spare parts; and, if so, since when?

Mr. Harold Macmillan: Production graphs and statistics of production cover many stages of the process of production, but the final statistics prepared for the Defence Committee (Supply) are based on the numbers of tanks which have been accepted by the Army as being capable of taking part in operations, that is, complete with essential tools and urgent spares.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE (FIRE SERVICE).

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the promised Defence Regulations relating to the fire-fighting responsibility of tenants of houses left empty, will be issued?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Wilkinson): As my right hon. Friend indicated in his reply of 3rd July to the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone(Captain Cunningham-Reid), he is engaged on the preparation of Regulations to deal with this problem which will be brought into operation as quickly as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — ICELAND (UNITED STATES OCCUPATION).

Mr. Lees-Smith: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any, information to give the House with regard to the situation in Iceland?

The Prime Minister: The military occupation of Iceland by the forces of the United States is an event of first-rate political and strategic importance; in fact, it is one of the most important things that has happened since the war began. It has been undertaken by the United States in pursuance of the purely American policy of protecting the Western Hemisphere from the Nazi menace. I understand that in the view of the American technical authorities modern conditions of war, especially air war, require forestalling action, in this case especially in order to prevent the acquisi-

tion by Hitler of jumping-off grounds from which it would be possible, bound by bound, to come to close quarters with the American Continent. It is not for me to comment on these American views, although I may say they seem fairly obvious to anyone who takes an intelligent interest in what is going on.
The seizure of Iceland by Hitler would be of great advantage to him in bringing pressure to bear both on Great Britain and the United States. We have for some time past, with the assent of the Icelandic people and the Legislature, maintained a strong garrison in the Island, and the arrival of powerful United States forces will greatly reduce the danger to Iceland. This measure of American policy is therefore in complete harmony with British interests, and we have found no reason on any occasion to object to it; indeed, I cannot see that we should have had any grounds for doing so in view of the invitation extended to the United States by the Icelandic Government. We still propose to retain our Army in Iceland, and, as British and United States Forces will both have the same object in view, namely, the defence of Iceland, it seems very likely they will co-operate closely and effectively in resistance of any attempt by Hitler to gain a footing. It would obviously be foolish for the United States to have one plan for defending Iceland and for the British Forces to have another.
If any issue of principle arises, it may be safely left to the British and American naval, military and Air Force authorities concerned, who will, I have no doubt, study each other's convenience to the utmost. Looked at from every point of view, I have been unable to find any reason for regretting the step which the United States have taken, and which in the circumstances they have been forced to take; indeed, I think I may almost go so far as to say, on behalf of the House of Commons as well as of His Majesty's Government, that we really welcome it. Whether similar satisfaction will be aroused in Germany is another question, and is one which hardly concerns us this morning.
The second principle of United States policy, which I understand has led them to the occupation of Iceland, has been the declared will and purpose of the


President, Congress and people of the United States, not only to send all possible aid in warlike munitions and necessary supplies to Great Britain, but also to make sure we get them. Here again is a course of action for which the United States must take full responsibility. Apart from this, the position of the United States Forces in Iceland will, of course, require their being sustained or reinforced at sea from time to time. These consignments of American supplies for American Forces on duty overseas for the purposes of the United States will, of course, have to traverse very dangerous waters, and, as we have a very large traffic constantly passing through these waters, I daresay it may be found in practice mutually advantageous for the two navies involved to assist each other, so far as is convenient, in that part of the business. I really do not think I have anything further to say about a transaction which appears at every point to be so very plain and simple.

Mr. Bellenger: With reference to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that British Forces will remain in Iceland, would it not be convenient for him to say whether they will remain in the same strength, and, if so, would he take into consideration, in conjunction with the Secretary of State for War, a proper allowance of leave for these men who have borne their burden and our burden so well in the past without very much leave?

The Prime Minister: I do not at present wish to add to the very full statement that I have made on this subject, but certainly the leave of the troops in Iceland must be considered in reference to the public requirements and to the needs of His Majesty's Forces elsewhere.

Mr. Lipson: Will the statement that the right hon. Gentleman has just made on Iceland be broadcast to all foreign countries?

The Prime Minister: A certain amount of publicity usually attaches to such a statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — SYRIA (FRENCH ARMISTICE PROPOSAL).

Mr. Lees-Smith: Has the Prime Minister any information to give the House regarding the situation in Syria?

The Prime Minister: It is true that we have received a formal application from the French High Commissioner in Syria, General Dentz, for a discussion of terms leading to an armistice. I need hardly say how very glad His Majesty's Government will be to see an end brought to this distressing conflict, in which 1,000 to 1,500 British, Australian and Indian soldiers who volunteered to join the Army in order to defend France have fallen, killed or wounded, under French bullets as the result of the lamentable confusion in which the affairs of so many good people in so many parts of the world have been thrown by the victories of Hitler's Army. I, therefore, should welcome the negotiations, and I trust they may reach a speedy conclusion. Pending any formal arrangement being made, military operations must, of course, continue without abatement.

Oral Answers to Questions — EIRE AND UNITED STATES (APPEAL FOR ARMS).

Sir W. Davison: With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said as to Hitler's practice of seizing jumping-off grounds, will he tell the House what is the position with regard to the appeal made by Mr. de Valera to the President of the United States for the supply of arms to Southern Ireland, and whether negotiations are proceeding in that connection?

The Prime Minister: That is a question which involves the quasi-Dominion status of Eire in its relations with a foreign Government.

Mr. Maxton: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain exactly the meaning of the term "quasi-Dominion status"?

The Prime Minister: It would lead to serious discussion if I expatiated on that subject. I do not understand that Mr. de Valera's Government accepts Dominion status.

Sir A. Knox: Does it not mean that Eire enjoys all the advantages of Dominion status and performs none of the duties?

BILLS PRESENTED.

WAR DAMAGE TO LAND (SCOTLAND) BILL,

" to make further provision with regard to the rights of landlords and tenants of lands and heritages in Scotland which have sustained war damage and to obligations to insure against war damage to such lands and heritages and to amend the War Damage to Land (Scotland) Act, 1939," presented by Mr. T. Johnston, supported by the Lord Advocate, Mr. Wedderburn, and Mr. Westwood; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 46.]

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE, CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS AND WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.

" to increase the rates of sickness and disablement benefit and the rates of contribution payable under the Acts relating to National Health Insurance, to extend the said Acts to persons employed otherwise than by way of manual labour at a rate of remuneration exceeding two hundred and fifty pounds a year, and in connection therewith to amend the Acts relating to widows', orphans and old age contributory pensions and certain other enactments; to enable any of the Acts aforesaid to be adapted by regulations to war-time conditions; and to amend paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of section three of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925," presented by Mr. Ernest Brown, supported by Mr. T. Johnston, Captain Crookshank, Mr. Peake, and Miss Horsbrugh; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

COLONIAL WAR RISKS INSURANCE (GUARANTEES) BILL,

"to authorise the Secretary of State to agree to make good any deficiencies in funds established by colonies and certain other countries for insuring commodities against war risks," presented by Mr. George Hall supported by Captain Crookshank; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day, and to be printed. [Bill 45.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Finance Bill, without Amendment.

Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[13TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

[SIR DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1941.

UNCLASSIFIED SERVICES.

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

PRODUCTION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £90, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1942, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Supply, including expenses of the Royal Ordnance Factories" [Note.—£10 has been voted on account.]

The Chairman: There is another Vote on the Order Paper, a Vote for the Ministry of Aircraft Production. Representations have been made to me that it would be convenient to discuss the two Votes together and that it would give rather more elasticity to the Debate. That can only be done if the Committee is prepared to give a general assent to that course. May I take it that assent is given?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Bevan: Can you give some further guidance to the House, Sir Dennis, as to the extent of the Debate? Will it be possible for references to be made to the relationship between produce lion and man-power which cannot be gone into in detail without also going into the administration of the Ministry of Labour?

The Chairman: Anything will be in Order which would be in Order on either of these two Votes. That being so, there will be a fairly wide scope for debate. The hon. Member asked me to answer a question as to what will or will not be in Order. I do not think I can go into details as to what will or will not be in Order.

Mr. Garro Jones: I might perhaps be allowed to say a word or two about the scope of the Debate, because I know that a number of my hon.

Friends have expressed some disappointment that it was not so arranged as to enable them without qualification to bring in all questions of man-power. I know it is always possible to make out a case for the extension of a Debate. But it seems to me that if the Debate on the munitions supply Departments is to be so extended as to enable Members to deal with the question of man-power as a whole, it becomes impossible to deal with the question of man-power without dealing also with subjects like agriculture, coal production and shipbuilding. Therefore, if we are going to be allowed to discuss administrative subjects falling within the purview of any individual Government Department, it seems to me that we might equally well reason that it is rather one sided to partition Government administration into Departments at all. In my experience and opinion, for what they are worth, it seems to me that the wider these Debates extend, the less productive they are of effective suggestions and criticisms. The reason is plain. Each succeeding Member who speaks tends to switch the attention of the Committee, so wide is the range of subjects covered, from the subject that has been raised by the previous speaker, and, when the Minister comes to reply, either we have to have half-a-dozen Ministers replying, or one Minister has to speak from a brief supplied by other Departments of which he is not the administrative head. In those circumstances, a Minister may be excused if he collects from the Debate those points which he finds it most convenient to answer and allows other criticisms to evaporate, perhaps unnoticed.
At the same time, I should not like my hon. Friends behind me to think that I do not believe that sometimes it is of the greatest value to have a Debate ranging over the whole field of Government production, but in such case I think we ought to exclude matters falling purely within Departmental administration. I think almost everybody is now agreed that there should be one higher Minister, who has a wider horizon than the heads of the three Service Supply Departments which now exist; who is informed of the requirements, in labour and materials, of competing Departments and who must know the changing allocations and priorities for every part of the war machine, entrusted to him for his supervision by the War


Cabinet. His would be the task of putting an end to the jostling for men and materials which undoubtedly still goes on in the industrial sphere of munitions supply. There are, at present, three Government Departments concerned with the supply of munitions for the Services. The most important of these, in my view, is the Ministry of Supply, not only because it performs to a limited extent common services for each of the three Service Departments, but also because its particular care, the Army, is, at present, the most ill-equipped, or the least well-equipped of the three fighting Services.
During the last few years we have had a great many Debates on the Ministry of Supply, and no fewer than four Ministers have tried their hands at administering that Department—Ministers with motley qualifications. We have had a lawyer, a renowned political administrator, a distinguished business man, and now we have a famous newspaper proprietor. I venture to say that up to date not one of them would admire the organisation of the Ministry of Supply as he found it. I further say that not one of them was operating the Ministry of Supply as an administrative machine. Each one has had to operate it by meeting daily needs as they arose, by breaking this or that bottle-neck, by rushing some improvised scheme into the gap or by appointing a new man or a new tank corps to deal with some weakness as it appeared in the administrative machine.
I am going to express the hope that Lord Beaverbrook, before having recourse to what may be described as traditional methods, will attempt to operate the Ministry of Supply as a machine, even if it is necessary to make some readjustment in its organisation first. He will not find it an easy matter any more than his predecessors did. I do not know whether the Committee is familiar, for example, with the complexity of the organisation for the production of tanks. I see that Lord Beaverbrook has appointed Mr. Rootes, whose record is one of success, to be deputy-chairman of the Supply Council. Under him there will be the Tank Board, which presumably is still functioning. There will be Mr. Geoffrey Burton, who is Director-General of Tanks and Transport:, and there is Vice-Admiral Sir Harold Brown, who is

Director-General of Munitions Production. There is also a Director-General of Mechanisation, a Director-General of Programmes and a Director, or Director-General of Plans. My feeling, which is based on some little information on the subject, is that if one heavy tank per week could be produced for every Director-General and Director concerned in the administration of their production, I should be pleasantly surprised.
The output of light, medium and heavy tanks—heavy tanks comprising those of 50 tons and upwards—is, in my view, a subject which should have the largest claim on our attention at this moment. It is just over a year ago since my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary, then Minister of Supply, tacitly admitted that up to that time at any rate, the output of new types of tanks was far from satisfactory. He told us plainly that the War Office had not been able to clarify what their needs were in regard to heavy tanks and that there were then a dozen views about what type of tank was required. Therefore a very wide list of tanks was then being constructed. My right hon. Friend acted with considerable vigour. He constituted the new Tank Board to clear up the muddle and gave directions that existing models of tanks should be pressed forward with the utmost rapidity and with as little modification as possible, or none at all. Fortunately for our security against air-borne invasion, that policy yielded a good "catch crop" of certain lighter types of tanks.
But what of the medium and heavy tanks? I am certain the Government will not wish to pretend that the output of medium and heavy tanks is what the Committee would expect, and I hope that the Minister who replies in this Debate will not hark back again to the old form of reassurance by taking an unknown figure of former production of medium and heavy tanks, and multiplying it by two or by 10 or by 12 and attempting to show. by methods of that kind, that progress has been made. I have even heard the Prime Minister having recourse to that method recently. He told the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha), a month or so ago, that there were 12 times the number of heavy tanks now in the Army that were there when the right hon. Gentleman left the War Office. That form of reassurance does not reassure the House


of Commons or the country. In fact, it has directly the opposite effect, after all these long years of misuse of the method. Neither does it impose on the enemy. I think it is not only in Lancashire that they have a proverb which briefly runs "Twice nowt's nowt" I do not suggest that that applies as regards the figures in this case. I know it does not but that is the principle and I implore the Minister not to attempt to use that method of reassurance to-day.
The truth is that tanks are still being held up by countless modifications—I shall have some examples to give the Committee. Tanks are still awaiting decisions as to what engines shall be placed in them. Tanks are lying in batteries awaiting parts like gear boxes and clutches. It seems to me extraordinary that, with the need so great, insistence should be laid by the War Office upon the incorporation of modifications in tanks which are only improvements on a fine balance of technical and military opinion. I can give the Committee one or two flashes of harmless illumination on the secret scene. In the case of one tank in production at a slow but fairly steady rate since September, 1939, the factory has until last month been continuously prevented from going into quantity production of that weapon by the endless stream of modifications received from the War Office, passing through the Ministry of Supply. During this period the number of individual modifications received in the drawing office of this factory—I am sure the Committee will hardly credit it, but they have been recorded, and I can give the facts to my hon. and gallant Friend —was in excess of 5,000. I am not an engineer, but I know enough about engineering to say that while some of these modifications might have been easy to incorporate such as changes of rivets, some might have been less easy, such as the change of position of a seat, because the man who has to drive the tank felt according to his taste that it would be more convenient if the seat were on the other side. Some of the modifications which were sent to the factory not only involve enormous wastage of time and labour in incorporating them into the design, but place a permanent brake upon the production of the weapon which makes quantity production impossible.
I will give an example which has led in the case of one tank, to a serious and continued delay in its production. The makers of the tank chassis were ordered to grind the edges of the armour plating at a certain joint true to an accuracy of two-thousandths part of an inch. They were astonished to receive these instructions. They asked, "Why is this necessary? It is something new in tank accuracy." It was explained to them that if bullets struck the junction of the two armour plates at the point of junction, there would be a certain amount of lead splashed from the bullets, some of which might penetrate into the interior of the tank. What was the result? Special grinding machinery had to be made. There was none in existence for grinding the edges of these armour plates to such' a fine point of accuracy. Even when special machinery had been made there was a constant continuing brake put upon the production of that weapon. [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) wish to make my speech for me? If he does, I should have been obliged if he had given me notice. I have had a lot of interruptions from him lately; and it would have saved a lot of trouble, and perhaps a better speech would have been delivered.

Mr. Kirkwood (: There is and has been for years this type of machinery in operation for grinding edges of armour plating to less than two-thousandths part of an inch.

Mr. Garro Jones: I am speaking about the size of armour plating required for this particular job, and I am satisfied that the authority upon which I make my statement would be accepted by my hon. Friend if I gave it to him.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Can my hon. Friend give that authority, because he has made some technical statements which to my own knowledge are inaccurate?

Mr. Garro Jones: When hon. Members are approached in confidence in the public interest, as my hon. and gallant Friend has been, it is an easy method to discredit statements made upon full responsibility by asking for a name which, obviously, in good taste and honour, cannot be given. A year ago General Hope and Brig.-General Pratt


were appointed to the Tank Board by the then Minister of Supply, now Home Secretary, in order to cut down the number of modifications which come streaming in from the War Office. Since then I have been rather horrified to learn, although I know nothing about General Pratt, who may be an officer of the highest qualifications, that he has been sent to the United States to give them some instructions in design and production. I hope that he is clear that in this matter he will be expected to act from the point of view of common sense. I hope that the Minister of Supply or the Parliamentary Secretary will see these two' War Office officers and make sure that this cause of delay, at any rate, will be removed. It would be possible to go on and give a catalogue of this kind, but I will give one or two examples.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: It should be made plain that the Ministry of Supply is responsible statutorily for design and that while my hon. Friend said that drawings were altered by the War Office 5,000 times in a certain period, it would be within the province of the Ministry of Supply to make those alterations and not of the War Office, except in a general way.

Mr. Garro Jones: I accept what my right hon. Friend says about the ultimate responsibility for design. The last word, I believe, rests with the Minister of Supply, but he acts upon the recommendations put forward by the War Office. If the War Office press with vigour and say they must have the modifications, and if the Minister of Supply refrains from pointing out the enormous difficulties of production and does not explain that five good tanks are better than one slightly better tank, then I lay the blame at his door and not at that of the War Office. Before I go on to say a word or two about the Ministry of Aircraft Production, I want to make this clear to the Committee. I do not want to be a prophet of woe, for so far as the supply of aircraft is concerned I know that enormous strides have been made, particularly in the last twelve months, and I have very little concern about the preparedness of the resistance to invasion of the Royal Air Force and its equipment at the present time, but we want more than that. In dealing with the Ministry

of Supply I think the position is not quite satisfactory. I am coming, however, to the Ministry of Aircraft Production.
In the case of both Ministries one of the weakest branches is the ordering and supplying of equipment in the United States of America. The Ministry of Aircraft Production has under order in the United States no fewer than 30 types of aircraft for the Royal Air Force. That is wholly unsatisfactory. We have long ago succeeded in reducing the number of types being made in Britain. Why have we not been able to secure a proportionate reduction in the United States? I know that there are difficulties. The result of having so many types produced in the United States is not that it is more difficult to produce the air frames and air engines, but that for every single type of aircraft produced in the United States a separate set of equipment has to be made, such as bomb racks, bomb-lifting cranes, maintenance tools and equipment, and so on. The sad feature of the United States supply of aircraft is that whereas orders were energetically placed in the last two years or more for air frames and engines, those who placed them forgot at the same time to ensure that supplies of maintenance equipment and ancillary equipment were provided. What is the result? Of one type of aircraft imported from the United States, complete and operationally ready, there are several hundreds—or were a few weeks ago—lying unpacked inland warehouses, in their crates, for the sole reason that those who placed the orders on behalf of the Ministry of Aircraft production did not order the necessary ancillary equipment. That is not a difficulty that was not foreseen, because I remember that when the Air Ministry were resisting pressure by this House and from other quarters to place orders to build aircraft in the United States one of the reasons given against that policy was that it would also involve the provision of innumerable additional sets of equipment. Therefore, the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Aircraft Production must have foreseen this difficulty, and must recognise that it is a difficulty which was not faced.
In my view many of these difficulties— and I will not weary the Committee with a catalogue of them, although I have several more instances—are due to a lack of higher control in the administration of


the three Supply Departments. I do not propose to occupy time in going at length into the causes. Our situation is such that we can better devote our time to devising remedies for these difficulties, and we may well ask what remedy there is for this defective organisation in the machinery of government which can be applied without risking confusion. One suggestion I would put forward is that it is now time for us to take at any rate one step by appointing a higher control over the Ministry of Aircraft Production and the Ministry of Supply and, if possible, the Admiralty as well. I realise that the Admiralty is not, perhaps, ready to come in at present. I can picture the admirals turning their telescopes upon the machinery of the Ministry of Supply, and it is not altogether surprising if they refuse to sail in its company, let alone join the ship; but if the Ministry of Supply is made into a more effective machine, I believe the Admiralty would be quite prepared to contribute, as they might greatly, to that organisation. I should like the Committee to notice that I did not use the word "merger" of these Departments. A merger would take a lot of time and we have not a lot of time. I used the phrase "higher control." The Committee may think that it shows some temerity in my part if I venture upon a suggestion in the higher realms of Government control, but I have long thought that there is a serious gap in our Ministerial system between the Prime Minister and the 25 or 30 heads of the great independent Departments over which he is supposed to exercise administrative authority.

Mr. A. Bevan: Has the hon. Member not forgotten that there is a Production Executive of the War Cabinet, over which the Minister of Labour presides, which is supposed to exercise effective control over all these Departments, and does he suggest that that Committee should be given over-riding authority?

Mr. Garro Jones: Personally, I am not in favour of committees being given overriding authority. As far as the Production Executive is concerned, whatever may be its nominal function, it exercises only an adjudicative function, and that is not enough. What I would like is that one of the several Ministers whom I am suggesting should be interposed between the Prime Minister and this long line of Ministers over whom he has authority

should be a Munitions Supply Minister. I do not contemplate that he should be a Departmental Minister. He should be a member of the War Cabinet but have no administrative duties. He would exercise an adjudicative and what is more important, if I can use this word, a "visitatorial" authority over the Supply Departments, an authority similar to that which the Prime Minister is supposed to exercise along the whole long line of the Treasury Bench, though I venture to say that very few Ministers of the great independent Departments have had more than a very few minutes of consultation with the Prime Minister in the last 12 months. I think it would greatly ease the burden of the Prime Minister and would greatly improve the machinery of the higher control of Departments if these five, six, or seven, it may be, were given this visitatorial authority over groups of appropriate Departments.

Earl Winterton: Ought not this Minister to go even further? Ought he not to be a sort of Deputy Prime Minister, with the authority—if such a man can be found—of the late Lord Milner in the last war?

Mr. Garro Jones: I would favour giving these Ministers the maximum possible authority. What their title is to be, whether Deputy Prime Minister or not, I am not saying. The only title I would bar would be "Deputy Fuehrer. "I think" Minister of State" would be quite a good title. But I would strongly favour giving these Ministers authority. Give the war leaders authority, and they may make mistakes; withhold that authority and they are sure to fail. Therefore I am in favour, so far as my opinion is worth anything, of giving the maximum possible authority, subject, of course, to War Cabinet supervision.
That is all I propose to say about the machinery of government. There is one all-important aspect of our war production upon which I want to say a few words. I refer to the choice of men for responsible positions in the whole range of the war effort. There is no priority committee in this all-important sphere. How are the key men chosen for all these great positions? Can we be quite sure that the choice is not too often based upon considerations of personal friendship, of whim, of immediate convenience, of


seniority, of reluctance to displace failures —or is it on no organised principle at all? Everybody knows that when a man is taken into a Government Department, to place his great experience at the disposal of that Department, he has to work in joint harness with the Civil servants, who completely stultify the whole purpose for which that outside man was brought in. I will give an example which occurred recently in a Supply Department. A prominent and energetic industrialist was brought in and had under him an invaluable Civil servant. Working under his direction that Civil servant was of the utmost value. One morning the Civil servant comes in to say, "I have been posted to. …" Naturally the head of the Department had a considerable shock. He asked "Why?" The Civil servant said, "Because there is a vacancy in my grade abroad, and there is no vacancy here, and I am going to be sent out in order that I can take advantage of my due promotion." That sort of thing is going on in the Supply Departments, and the attention of Ministers ought to be given to it. There are wrangles in the Service for good men, and they result in the retaining in jobs of men who are inefficient. I heard one Supply Minister caution the House against changes in his Department. He said that a State Department was a delicate piece of machinery and had to be handled carefully lest the Department became demoralised. Can anything demoralise a Department more quickly than retaining in office and authority men whom the whole Department know to be inefficient?
We have been slow to recognise both success and failure, especially in the case of men lower down in the social grades, among the good craftsmen. I do not know how many hon. Members have any skill in particular grades of craftsmanship and who realise the endless patience and skill required to turn out a good job. One never hears a Minister of Information turn the microphone and the spotlight on these men in order to give them courage, yet we owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. [Interruption.] It is true that Ministers have given full credit to the skill of the workmen, but it is not enough to tell the public these things in general terms. We want the public told what skill it requires to work to these fine

tolerances in order to produce accurate machines. Imagination is required. I could not do the job. Men are available who could explain to the public what is being done on their behalf by way of craftsmanship as a contribution to the war effort.
Let me give other examples. Take the question of 8-gun fighters. I remember pressing upon the Government in this House years ago to incorporate four guns in our fighters, but I did not know that a tremendous struggle was going on within the Air Ministry all that time to resist the incorporation of eight guns in our fighters. The Air Ministry resisted that for a long time. There were men of vision and experience who forced that change upon the Air Ministry. I have never heard any recognition given to those men, but what they did was of enormous consequence in our victory in the Battle of Britain. A decisive scientific and technical achievement, which was also a decisive production achievement, was put into operate on by the same man. I often see Captain Fraser Nash in the uniform of a Home Guard, but upon his breast there is no indication that the Government appreciate his enormous services. Failure to recognise success in achievement has a bad effect upon war production.
I am not sure that the Prime Minister himself sets a very good example of sound principle in selecting men as Ministers. Everybody loves the Prime Minister for his loyalty to his friends, but, if carried to the point of adhesion to persons who have proved unsuccessful, it is not profitable. The Prime Minister is unrivalled in our history in his acknowledged leadership, and our loyalty to him is not affected by the criticisms which we sometimes make of some of his Ministers. I notice at times an atmosphere of expectation on the Treasury Bench that the House and the country should treat everybody who is appointed by the Prime Minister as though they were gentlemen who had received their commissions from the mountains of Galilee. If men who have failed do not go, the abilities of men who have succeeded cannot be harnessed to the war machine. Last summer a few hundred airmen won for Britain a short respite. Now it appears that Providence is to give us another respite, thanks to the stubborn resistance of the Russian Army. Let us use it this time not merely


to fend off defeat, but to marshal our men and weapons for victory. That is what the nation asks from the Government.

Sir Adam Maitland: I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken into some of the wider issues that he has raised. He said we should have a Controller of the three heads of the Service Departments. I am suspicious of supermen and prefer that the heads of these Departments should themselves be men of competence, ability and courage. We would then like them to act with the highest degree of co-ordination. It would be much more satisfactory in practice to have this system than that there should be one Minister largely responsible for the many acts and decisions which might help our various efforts in war production. Nevertheless, I shall not venture into the speculative realms of high political appointments, but will deal with one or two matters which have been the subject of inquiry by committees of this House, particularly in regard to aircraft production. I refer to some of the work of the Select Committee on National Expenditure. Perhaps the Committee will be interested to know about this, because the Air Services Committee have taken a great deal of evidence with regard to the production of aircraft, labour questions, the efficiency of management and the thousand and one other things which are wrapped up in this very important subject. There has been such a great expansion in the aircraft industry that it is not surprising that there should be defects. It would indeed be surprising if there were no defects, and I hope that in the few words I shall utter I shall not be accused of speaking in an unduly critical manner of either managements or men.
I should like to bring to the notice of the Committee certain aspects of this very important question of aircraft production. I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to the aircraft which had come from America. I have no doubt that when the Minister comes to reply he will deal with that, but I should like to ask him, on the same subject, if it is true that in the early days when France collapsed this country took over the whole of the aircraft which had been ordered by France from America. I believe it is true,

both with regard to France and with regard to this country, that in the ordering of planes not sufficient attention was paid to the question of ordering equipment, and I believe that the same thing applies in great measure to many of the aircraft we are producing to-day. This is very important, because the time comes when you must choose between a larger number of new craft, or determine whether simultaneously with the production of a lesser number of new craft, you will also at the same time produce the proper quantity of spare parts. I am not sure that sufficient regard has been paid to that important aspect. It is a good thing, and of course it is a picturesque thing, to be able to say that in a certain time so many new craft have been produced and the figures are mounting, but it is not necessarily the wisest thing if at the same time there has ' not been provided the necessary equipment for maintenance, replacement and repair and provision for accidents.
I should therefore like to emphasise that particular problem, and to say that I believe that in industrial affairs, and I think all engineers will agree, that even in war-time, the best results over a long period of time are likely to accrue when you have, as far as possible a well balanced production. From time to time, because of some particular event, you may have to change over speedily for some special purpose which has arisen; but when changes of that kind are made it almost inevitably follows that there is a disturbance of the general balance of production. For example, before the Battle of Britain—and everybody pays tribute to the gallant airmen who fought in it—there must have been a big demand for fighter machines, but shortly afterwards we had the appeal over the wireless from the then Minister of Aircraft Production to "Roll out the bombers." It must be obvious that as the result of the greatly increased production of fighters there must have been some corresponding reduction in the output of bombers. I do no more than just refer to it in order to emphasise that the best results, from the point of view of industrial production, are to be obtained by retaining as even a balance as possible.
I would like to ask one or two questions. Are the Ministers concerned perfectly satisfied that the best use is being made of our man-power? The hon.


Gentleman referred to the degree of craftsmanship and skill which many of our people possess in unrivalled degree, but modern mechanism is such—and it may be alarming to some of my hon. Friends who have stood so long for the preservation of well-earned trade union rights—that many operations which 20 years ago were looked upon as being the preserve of particular craftsmen can now be mastered by unskilled labour and by women in a very short time of training. Are we utilising our skilled and versatile workmen to the best advantage? In this war men whose skill is unusual and personal should not spend their time in routine work. I think it will be found today that a very large percentage of these skilled. men are being utilised in routine jobs. I would also like to suggest that we are not using our plant and machinery to its fullest capacity. It is essential that there should be a greater use of night shifts. A great many of the new factories which are building would not be necessary if present plant and machinery were used to their fullest extent. We have had complaints about the inefficiency of management. The experience of my hon. Friends and myself on this particular Committee has demonstrated to us the difficulty which arises, in this vast expansion, of finding just the best people to do the most important executive jobs, and I therefore say at once that there are many cases where the efficiency of the management is not at all what could be desired. I am very glad to be able to tell the Committee, from the evidence we have, that old-established concerns, compared with the shadow factories, have certainly generally impressed us by their efficiency and the way in which they are doing their work. There have of course been exceptions, but I am giving the House a general picture in general terms.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that these old-established firms have not had the same opportunities as the new shadow factories?

Sir A. Maitland: No. What I meant was that because they were established prior to the war they had been able to build up their organisations gradually, gather around them efficient personnel and in this crisis were doing a better job of work—which is understandable—than

the shadow factories, with new managements, and new workpeople, set in a new part of the country often far from their homes. It is quite natural and it would be a serious reflection on our pre-war industrial methods if it were not so. I desire to put that point of view, because it is sometimes assumed that shadow factories, Government factories, are so much better than the ordinary industrial concern, and I wish to put the balance right.
Another question of some importance I wish to raise is that of wages. I our Fifteenth Report we have reported regarding wages in the aircraft industry. I think we have been very fair in our comments. We have pointed out that some stories with regard to high wages are grossly exaggerated. We have also pointed out, quite fairly, that wages in the aircraft industry are much higher than those in the engineering industry generally. I believe it is very important, if the productive effort is to be aided to the best advantage, that regard should be had to the wage rates which have been fixed by the various organisations, and federation rates of wages observed. I am not at the moment discussing whether wages are too high or too low, but thinking of the fact that we are at war. I can give an instance to illustrate my point. In one case, in a Government factory, 50 men whose services could no longer be utilised were asked to go to another Government factory. They refused, because the rates of wages at their first factory were higher than they would get at the other. That was a perfectly understandable point of view of the men. What happened was that for a fortnight these 50 men remained at their first factory, and had no work. They were paid but there was no production from them. Something is sadly wrong if, in war-time, that kind of thing can happen. I put it forward not with any intention of suggesting interference with existing arrangements regarding wage negotiations but to stress that it is important that the authorities should exercise influence to see that there is recognition of federation rates and that these should be honoured as far as possible. We cannot forget the State is the highest purchaser of almost every commodity to-day and increased costs—whatever the cause—have mainly to be found by the State.
One word on the very thorny subject of absenteeism. There are two kinds of absenteeism, avoidable and unavoidable. The Committee will find that we have been very careful to distinguish between the two. I must say that when Ministers suggest that there are exaggerated stories with regard to absenteeism they should not stop there. It does not answer the charge. They must deal with the facts; which are, as can be seen in our report regarding the aircraft industry, after we had had evidence submitted to us by representative employers to say that absenteeism was one of their greatest problems. In some cases the percentage was from ten to 12 and in one case was as high as 20 per cent.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: I trust that the hon. Member will be careful what he says. In a recent speech in Manchester the Minister of Labour said that those who say there is absenteeism in the works must be members of the Fifth Column.

Mr. Woodburn: When the hon. Member makes this statement regarding percentages, does it relate to the week-end and not to the rest of the week? Is he referring to the whole labour time, or to particular days in the week when it is suggested that absenteeism is prevalent?

Sir A. Maitland: The figures which I gave were a fair average over a period, and not of an exceptional period. I appreciate all the implications involved in the interjection of my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson). Having promised the Chairman not to occupy too much time, I must conclude by saying we all wish to see mobilised to the full our industrial strength, and it is in that spirit that Members generally will take part in this Debate.

Lieutenant Brabner: I ask the indulgence of the Committee for a Member making a maiden speech, particularly as I have been away from this House for the best part of a year, and have not had the opportunity of listening and learning here. I am also conscious of the danger of young officers coming back to the House and discussing the war, or the sinews of war, when it is quite obvious they can have seen only a very small part of the gigantic whole. I think that, however, if one has had some personal experience, however

brief or violent, one has a privilege to bring the matter up in the House with the idea that other people may benefit from that experience afterwards. I wish to tell the Committee a little of the needs which we had in the Middle East, and of a suggestion or two whereby these needs might possibly be met by the productive resources in this country. May I say that I got out of Crete in an extremely battered aircraft before the German parachutists landed? That is why I am here to-day to take the time of the Committee for a few minutes. In the Middle East and Greece, in Crete, Libya and in Syria there has been an almost chronic lack of most of the important materials of war. I say "has been", because I have been given the highest assurances that this matter is being attended to, and I accept those assurances. I hope that the Under-Secretary will to-day be able to reiterate those assurances from his knowledge of our production capacity and the materials which we are producing.
First of all, aircraft. The R.A.F. will know, with anger, the unpleasant fact of having constant German fighter patrols over our own aerodromes in Greece, so that our own pilots could not take off. It is, perhaps, incredible, but I can assure the Committee it is true, that we who were at Maleme in Crete were rarely in a position to put more than two aircraft into the air for continuous patrol during the daylight hours. It is improper for an hon. Member in uniform to talk about his own Service, so I am making my remarks particularly about the other two Services which were concerned in the Middle East. These are the facts; there were no aircraft. I cannot help feeling that at this stage of the war we ought to have had them.
That is not a constructive remark but I hope, if I may be allowed to discuss two or three more details, to make a constructive suggestion later. It is common knowledge in this country and elsewhere that the anti-aircraft position is lamentably short. We have been building antiaircraft guns as hard as we can, I presume, but we are still short of them, and grievously short. At Maleme there were eight or 10 Bofors guns —the Germans have now got them, so I am telling them nothing which they do not know. These were knocked out, because there were no


heavy anti-aircraft guns to keep off aircraft, which were out of range of the lighter guns. There is a great shortage of multiple half-inch machine guns, which are much sought after for attack against low-flying aircraft. I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us whether he is satisfied with the production of Browning guns and 20 mm. cannon for aircraft, and whether he is satisfied with the distribution of that production over the country, so that it cannot be knocked out by one German attack.
May I bring to the notice of the Committee two more details? Our tanks in Libya, Greece and Syria did marvellously against the Italians. Against the Germans, they did not do so well, because there were not enough of them and they were too slow. In Greece between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. broke down before they ever saw the enemy, for reasons of which I am sure the Minister is well aware. This question of tanks is one that must be viewed with some concern at the moment, when there is quite obviously going to be a drive put into tank production. I am coming back to that point in a moment. Another matter is the importance of dive-bombers to our Army and our Air Force. It is quite clear that in Syria, Libya and Greece a dive-bomber of some description was necessary. In Greece the German troops debussed in sight of, but just out of range of, our troops. I do not think we had enough aircraft anywhere; certainly we had not enough to hit those debussing troops. It is quite clear that neither the Army nor the R.A.F. has resolved its difficulties as to the production of this type of aircraft. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to say a few words about that. I do not believe that we can hope to compete in production with Germany, if we want to win this war in less than five or six years, in all three Services. We have got to have a large Navy, because of our geographical position. It seems to me that we must make up our minds, from a productive point of view, whether we are going to beat the Germans by obtaining decisive superiority on land or in the air.
If, as seems to be the case at the moment, our productive resources arc strained in all directions to obtain a little of everything and a decisive superiority of nothing, conditions will arise such as

have already arisen in Libya, Greece, Crete and Syria. If you strain these productive resources all over the map, you will have to wait until the production of America has a total effect. That may or may not be a long time; I do not know. But we in this country have to make up our minds whether we want tanks or aircraft. There is an absolute strategy in this. If we could produce 20,000 aircraft to hit the Germans with, we should win the war. If we had 5,000 tanks and 5,000 aircraft, I do not know whether we should be much better off than we are to-day, except from the point of view of numbers. I have tried to point out some very crying needs in the Middle East—and I am certain that they exist, if not quite so severely, in this country. While the details I have given are not, perhaps, constructive, and merely point out a lack hon. Members perhaps already knew, I would emphasise that it is time that we made up our minds that we can obtain a decisive superiority in one sphere if we go all out for it; and the sooner we obtain it the better. This Committee has the power to make its urgent desires known. I, for one, would like very humbly to underline as strongly as I can the urgency of this matter. Everything we produce to-day is worth twice what it will be worth in twelve months' time. I am quite certain of that. If we make our urgent desires known, let us make them known quickly and impressively in every factory and to every general staff in the country.

Major Oscar Guest: It has fallen to my lot to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Hythe (Lieut. Brabner) upon his maiden speech. I do so with very great pleasure, because I think that his words were very apposite to the occasion. He gave a picture of the needs of our Fighting Services, and of the urgency of those needs. My only excuse for intervening in the Debate is that it has fallen to my lot to manage two factories engaged in producing munitions for the three Fighting Services. In that way I have had a close picture of the difficulties of the manufacturer, and some idea as to the remedies which might be successful. I will deal with only two or three points.
The first is the machine-tool situation. Because of the assistance of the United States and the organisation of the Machine-


Tool Control, great numbers of machine-tools of all kinds are coming into this country. I am not clear how the machine-tool departments of the three Fighting Services are co-ordinated, but I presume that there is one central control. If we get great machines coming to this country, worth £2,000 or £3,000 at least, they should come with all the equipment that they need. There have been several instances of machines having to wait for vital parts, which are not supplied with the machines. I know that the point is engaging the attention of the Machine-Tool Control, but I would like it to engage their attention more. The manufacturers' difficulty is the servicing of these machines. They need accessories in greater numbers than ever before. If the accessories are not found, the machines will not operate; and they are expected to operate all day, and sometimes all night as well. It would be a useful development if the Machine-Tool Control had a section to co-ordinate the obtaining of the necessary consumable tools for these machines. Possibly it is the new fact of the problem. It is one of growing urgency at the present time. An hon. Member spoke of various equipment he was anxious to see and with which I happen to be closely connected. Nothing is going to assist the production of that equipment so much as machine tools, and the difficulty we are all up against is that of obtaining these in sufficient numbers at a sufficiently rapid rate. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider whether machine tool control could have a department which would particularly deal with the regulating and servicing of the machines.
The other point to which I would like to draw attention is the technical control supply, whether it be research in design or in specification. We heard from the hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate about those 5,000 modifications in a certain design. We have heard from others about model specifications and from others about standards which are acceptable and serviceable and standards which are not. In this war, which is essentially a technical war, not enough attention is being paid to the staffing of the technical services of the three fighting Services, and particularly of the Ministry of Supply, which supplies such a large proportion of the supplies. I would like to see the Designs Department and the Inspection

Department of these Ministries very much strengthened and enabled to employ the services of high-grade technical men. I do not know whether, to some extent, that is a Treasury matter, but, if so, it is a matter upon which the Treasury is unwise to be stingy. The Inspection Department supplies the standard of the stores which it requires for the Services. It decides the technical points which arise, and it has the technical control of output, and that Service is under-staffed and is unable to obtain more staff because it has not the Treasury wherewithal to do so at rates which will enable technical engineers to be obtained.
This war is very much one not only of bravery and valour, but of the best technical equipment—the strongest tank, the fastest aeroplane and the best automatic gun—and we have not sufficiently emphasised the necessity for a strong and highly efficient technical staff to control the technical end of production. I believe that if the Treasury would realise this and would allow Departments to strengthen that side of organisation. we would receive immediate benefit.
There is only one other point I would like to raise, and that is the question of the power of decision. We find, as manufacturers, that it is very difficult to obtain from departments clear-cut and quick decisions. Curiously enough, we are all visited by enormous numbers of officials of all kinds, all trying very hard and all anxious to do their best, but very few of them are empowered to give a decision on anything whatever. In view of the enormous expansion of production with which we and the Ministry are trying to compete, it is impossible for everything to be referred to every Department again. Would it not be wise to take a chance and spread the power of decision to lower grades, even if mistakes were made? The slowness with which it is possible to obtain decisions is very marked, and I am sure that other manufacturers would agree with me in what I say. It is only when you can get an official to overstep his powers to give a decision that you get things done. I ask the Ministers of the Fighting Services who need these stores seriously to consider the derogation of powers.

Mr. Loftus: Can my hon. and gallant Friend tell us whether the power of decision in one Department,


such as the Admiralty, is greater than it is in the other two Departments, because that raises an important point? I understand that the Admiralty do derogate power of decision, but that the Air Ministry and the War Office do not.

Major Guest: I should say that there is a tendency to increase the powers of decision in all the Ministries, but it is one which might very well be increased. I believe that, if that could be considered more and we could get our marching orders quicker and know what our marching orders were, and if decisions were not changed more than was absolutely necessary but could be adhered to, it would quickly benefit output.
I would like to refer to one remark made by the hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate. He said that not enough recognition was given to workers, staffs, technical staffs and so on, who have done good work in the factories in this production drive, and I agree with that suggestion. I would like to see recognition of all grades engaged in munitions production. It is difficult to say whether it could be shown by the award of a meritorious order or how it could be done. I live in a munition factory all day, I see all grades, from the youngest worker to the factory manager, working 12 hours a day, every day, and I would like them to receive some recognition of the good will and work put in by all grades throughout munitions production. I have visited a great many firms, and if it were possible for the Ministry of Labour or some other Ministry to organise some scheme of recognition for good, hard work, without any absenteeism, and for inventive work in the more skilled grades, I think it would have a very great effect.
In conclusion, I think we ought not to be too depressed as to the work which is being done by the three Supply Ministries and by the munition factories throughout the country. The amount which has been done is very great. It is due to the individual good will, which is shown by all in the factories, in the Ministries and throughout the country, that it has been achieved. Still, there is always room to do better. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the two or three suggestions I have put forward, which, I think, might ease the working of the machine and assure that the muni-

tions that we want to see reach our Fighting Forces reach them at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Mander: I cannot help thinking that in a Debate of this importance it is rather regrettable that the representation of the Government is left at the present time to one of the Joint Parliamentary Secretaries. In view of the very admirable speech to which we have just listened, there ought to be a representative of the War Cabinet and of the other Ministries interested. I understand that the hon. Gentleman who represents the Ministry of Supply in this House has to be absent for a certain amount of time, but the absence of a representative of the Ministry of Labour and of the War Cabinet is very regrettable.
In the remarks that I intend to make, I shall criticise the present organisation of supply, but I intend to do it in a spirit of helpful criticism. I am most anxious that the Government may be stimulated to adopt a course which will produce very much better results than at the present time under the most unsatisfactory working of the Production Executive, which is not delivering the goods in the quantities that are desired or of which it is capable. I want to make it clear that I am not attributing any blame to the present Ministers of Supply or of Aircraft Production. They have been in office for only a short time. Nor am I blaming managements, except to a minor extent, and I do not intend to blame workpeople at all, because I do not think conditions have been favourable to them. What has gone wrong is the business of proper central control of production from the beginning of the war until the present time. We must make a fundamental change in the arrangements which are now in existence. Let me make this point clear too. The enemy cannot draw any possible consolation from the criticisms that will come out of this Debate because we all recognise that there has been a tremendous output of war equipment of all kinds and that valuable services have been rendered in various theatres of war. But we do feel that there could have been a very great deal more achieved than actually has been the case.
The workers have that feeling, as is well shown by the recent Gallup survey


published in the "News Chronicle," which shows, for what it is worth, that 60 per cent. Of the workers of this country think that a much greater output could be obtained if things were in proper order. I want to describe, first, the situation as I see it, to give a few examples and then to suggest some remedies. The Select Committee on National Expenditure in their 15th Report referred to conditions in the aircraft industry, and made a suggestion that there was labour in the industry which was not fully employed. They said that there was no reasonable prospect of full productive employment in the near future and that idle labour was becoming a permanent and undesirable feature in industry generally. These are very serious criticisms and I believe they are fully justified. Certain examples have come to my knowledge, examples which are by no means confined to any one factory. They have come from the North and the South and other parts of the land. A question I have been asked is: "How is it that hundreds of aircraft workers are being discharged from different aircraft factories at the moment when they are told there is urgent need for aircraft?" Workers simply cannot understand it. I heard of a factory recently where, in one week, there were 1,000 hours of idle time in the machine shop. There is no possible justification for that kind of thing.

Mr. Stokes: Could my hon. Friend give us some indication of the size of the shop?

Mr. Mander: It is a factory of considerable size.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I think the point made by the hon. Gentleman was that if it is a large factory, it was a small figure?

Mr. Stokes: Yes.

Mr. Mander: I heard of another case where, owing to failure to plan and organise properly for the change-over from one type of machine to another, there was the prospect of 2,000 men having nothing to do for five months. To some extent that has been put right, but it was a shocking example of bad planning. In another case, that of a moderate-sized machine shop, there were 32 machines idle for weeks and the work-

people strongly criticised it. Nothing has been done about it. Another case is that of a factory where only an average of 16 hours a day is being worked, leaving aside Sunday, on which day I do not suggest that they should work. The workers asked, "Why cannot our machines be used for 24 hours a day instead of 16?" Men in these factories are disgusted with this sort of thing. It is very bad for morale and if anything will break their spirit it will be that feeling of frustration and the thought that the facilities are not being properly used. Workers resent being paid simply for playing cards, which they have had to do on many occasions.
Suggestions have been made recently that it was too easy to get into certain factories and the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production did take up one particular case to which his attention was called. But I would ask him to look further into the matter as I understand that that sort of thing applies in other cases. Factory managements, as a whole, should be warned of the grave dangers that arise in this connection. One minor remedy, but important in its way, is that there ought to be established joint consultative machinery in the different factories. We were told the other day that the Minister concerned was doing all he could to bring this about but he made it plain that he was meeting with a certain amount of resistance and a lack of good will. The Committee ought to be told where is the absence of good will. Is it among employers or workers? Every possible step ought to be taken to see that there is machinery whereby employers and employed can discuss points of the sort to which I have been referring. This machinery ought to be set up at the earliest possible date.
The fundamental cause of the trouble is, I think, the way in which the Ministry of Supply was originally set up. We know it was set up in a very feeble hesitating way, after immense pressure and tremendous delays, and then only just before war broke out and not with the proper powers. The proper powers do not exist at the present time; the whole thing was wrongly conceived from the beginning. The Ministry of Supply was made far too much into a buying organisation instead of an organisation which could not only buy but see that it got, by co-


ordination in the factories throughout the country, the goods which were so urgently required. The proposal I want to make —one which has already been referred to and which commands general support is this: that we should now have a real Ministry of Production. There should be appointed a Minister of Production with the same sort of powers as the Minister of Munitions had in the last war, so that the Ministry could really do what they wanted and get things done. Under that Ministry of Production you would have grouped together the Ministry of Aircraft Production, the Ministry of Supply and the Admiralty purchasing side which would become Departments and cease to be separate Ministries. They should be linked together so that, by careful planning, they would be able to effect all that is required throughout the country.
We recently had the announcement that Lord Beaverbrook, with his great energising talents, is going to the Ministry of Supply to do, I suppose, work similar to that which he did at the Ministry of Aircraft Production. I am bound to say that I view this with some alarm. It is not that I do not appreciate Lord Beaver-brook's qualities, but it is rather alarming to think of the Noble Lord once again coming into the arena and taking part in a battle of production between aircraft and tanks. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hythe (Lieutenant Brabner) who said that we must make up our mind, as the Cabinet must make up their mind—which I believe they have never done yet—how we are going to win the war. Is it to be done in the air, as I venture to think, or by landing an army in France and striking through to Berlin, a thing which I do not think anybody seriously contemplates? The Cabinet must make up their mind very definitely on this matter. There is a danger of a struggle once again; Lord Beaverbrook will want to make his Department extremely successful; he will do everything he can to get the best men and the best materials, grabbing the might and left, as is happening already to some extent. There is no doubt that he will make the fur fly, but will the final result be to the advantage of the war effort as a whole? I venture to think that the right place for Lord Beaverbrook would be as Minister of Pro-

duction in charge of all the sources of supply. He would then have no temptation to isolate himself in his own Department, but would use all his energies for supplying the three different agencies that exist at present.
My suggestion is that there should be a Minister of Production with the three Departments under him. The present production Ministries would become production departments, each controlled by the chairman of a production executive committee. These chairmen would be the members of a national production executive committee, the chairman of which would be the Minister of Production. Decentralisation would be achieved by greatly enlarging the powers of the Regional Area Boards. Let me say here that I do not think the announcement made yesterday by the Minister of Labour and National Service went far enough with regard to the Area Boards. Although it was a step in the right direction, it did not give the Area Boards executive powers to do things. The right hon. Gentleman said that they were purely advisory, but I feel that as long as we work on these lines, we shall not make the progress that is desired. According to my scheme, the Area Boards would be reconstituted as regional production executive committees, and would be exact replicas, on a regional basis, of the new Ministry of Production. The chairman of the regional executive committee would be responsible to the national production executive committee, and there would be members on it representing aircraft, supply, and the Admiralty. Each of these members would have under his control an expert full-time staff to deal with the four important sections to which I shall refer in a moment.
The present production Ministries, which would become departments under this scheme, would be re-organised so that the fundamental elements of production could be effectively planned. I suggest that the pattern for each Ministry could be as follows: There would be (a) the chairman of the production executive committee, and under him there would be (b) a department dealing with research, development and design, which exists already; and (c) a department dealing with contracts, payments, finance and costing, which exists now. There would then be two new departments, the first (d) dealing with planning, timing and progressing,


and the second (e) a "helping-hand" department to improve production, management, and technique in industry. The chairman would be the chairman of the production executive committee, and there would be governing directors-general covering the four departments. The planning division would plan the fundamental elements, in relation to production demands covered by contracts. The subjects to be dealt with would be labour—in collaboration with the Ministry of Labour—materials, machine tools, tooling, which is a matter of enormous importance, because when there is a change-over from one design to another, an immense amount of labour and time is needed. Then there is the question of programmes and timing.
That is something which goes on all the time, and it is a vitally important task, not properly done at present. It is also one involving foresight in order that there shall be no gap such as occurs at present when one type is finished and a new type is being brought in, and nothing is done or thought out for the purpose of filling the breach, with the consequence that the workers become discontented. There would be a progressing department which would follow the actual production week by week in relation to demand. All the causes of shortages would be analysed objectively for the purpose of giving a helping hand to industry to eliminate bottlenecks. A proper progressing department is essential. People would look at the statistics coming in week by week, and if it was found that in one particular respect supplies were falling off, somebody would be sent immediately to find out why, and take the necessary steps. I think also it would be desirable, before the contract was given out, to see that the contractor concerned could really deliver the goods, for it happens too often now that he cannot do so, and the whole work is handed over to sub-contractors. Proper steps ought to be taken beforehand in order to prevent such things from occurring.
The new department to deal with production, management and technique seems to me to be a very important matter. The management have not been able in all respects to cope with the great tasks now placed upon them. I do not altogether blame the management, for this is a totally new thing and they have never been trained to deal with immense

tasks of this sort. They need help, guidance and encouragement in carrying out these tasks. This department should be organised to give a helping hand to industry, and especially to the inefficient units, in the vast field of production management technique. This is really the key to efficient production. The department would function largely as an educational force, spreading its influence from within, and in performing its function it would harness the cooperative spirit and ability in the more efficient productive units, so that through close human contacts these benefits might flow along the whole production front to the advantage of the weaker units in the cooperative group. Of course, there would be directors-general to deal with such main sub-divisions as fighter aircraft, engines, bombers, and so on.
Let me add that an organisation of this kind could not be run by civil servants. Civil servants are admirable people, and in this country we all think highly of them in their place, but they are not trained to carry out a production programme. Steps should be taken to see that engineers are employed to the fullest possible extent in association with the civil servants required to carry out the work of production. I should have thought that the time had come when we could advantageously end the system by which the Treasury control the Civil Service. Let the Treasury be separated from the Civil Service, and let the Civil Service stand by itself. I believe the Government ought to consider whether the time has not come when the head of the Civil Service, Sir Horace Wilson, might not properly be put on pension. If we are really to succeed in producing what our fighting services require, we shall have to go in for some machinery of this kind, which, I think, commands general support in the House and in the country, whatever support it may command inside the Government itself. You have the choice between planning and laissez faire. Laissez faire will lead to chaos and demoralisation. We have to plan or lose the war. A very eminent personage, who is familiar with what is going on in production both in this country and in the United States, who has paid visits to the leading authorities here and who knows what is happening in the United States, stated the other day that if we lost this war it would be because


of our failure to plan. He knew what he was talking about, and I urge the Government to go to it as rapidly as they can without losing another day.

Mr. Quibell: This has been a very interesting Debate, and I think we can relate our difficulties chiefly to labour and its proper utilisation. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has mentioned planning. My view is that half the time of employers should be devoted to looking after the efficiency of machines, instead of being taken up by filling in forms of one kind or another. That may not be the Committee's idea of planning, but I have found that half the Government officials are spending their time in wasting the time of others instead of getting on with the winning of this war. I wish to say a word or two about factories, because, after all, if we are to win this war it can only be won as a result of their work. I believe that hitherto no attempt has been made to obtain and use a lot of skilled labour for the erection of these particular factories. The other week a certain firm was asked by another firm with a big name to give a hand in the work they were doing. The reply was, "Yes, we will willingly give you our aid." A letter was answered in a week, and direct contact was made with the firm in question.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): I think the hon. Member is now discussing the subject of the supply of labour which comes under the Ministry of Labour Vote. That is not the Vote we are discussing to-day, and therefore I am afraid he is out of order in dealing with this subject.

Mr. Quibell: I was trying to relate it as best I could to the subject which is now under discussion. If I am unable to refer to this question to-day I will reserve the rest of that part of my speech for a more appropriate occasion. I know factories, which in this and in the last war were making tanks where not one quarter of the employees have been engaged on war production. I think it is a scandal to import machines from the United States when three out of four men employed in tank-producing firms are engaged on private work. It is a scandal that full use has not been made of the

experience of the particular firm I have in mind. It is a firm which first made tanks in this country, and, as I say, a month or two ago I found that only one in four were engaged on war production. Tribute has often been paid to certain workers, and particularly to what are called the technicians. My description of a technician is that he is a man without any trade of his own who organises work for other people.
Take the case of our steel trade. They are making a handsome contribution to this war, but I have heard very little said about them. They have increased the number of shifts per week from 17 to 19, and each man is on an average working an hour per day more to help this country win the war. One of the essential needs for this industry is coal, and that is a question which ought to be dealt with as soon as possible. I should like the Miners' Federation and the miners to consider increasing their hours proportionately to those of the steel-workers to help solve the coal problem. I know it will not be popular; it was not popular with the men in the steel works, but it has been done without the slightest trouble in our district. It is a great compliment to the industry, both to the employers and employees, and I commend the same spirit of toleration, and the desire to pull the heaviest weight in order that we may win this war, to those engaged in the coal industry.

Mr. Higgs: The problem which confronts us to-day is that of demand exceeding supply. That is where the majority of our difficulties lie. Undoubtedly we are getting contradictory instructions from the various Government Departments, and unfortunately there is no co-ordination between one Department and another. I do not particularly blame the Government, the employer or the employee, but undoubtedly there is a considerable amount of confusion. I am not altogether sure that the best men are selected for various jobs. I do not know whether it is in order to refer to the movement in labour, but I consider there is too much movement going on at present. It may cost £20 or £30 to move one individual from one job to another. I agree that dilution has to take place, but greater discretion is wanted.

The Deputy-Chairman: The movement of labour is definitely down on the Labour Vote and not on that for the Ministry of Supply.

Mr. Higgs: Considerable efficiency has been lost because firms which have learned their job in the years of competition have been induced to go over to the manufacture of other commodities. I know of one firm which in the first six months of 1939 turned out 135 tons of metal per employee and in the first six months of 1941 103 tons, a reduction of 23 per cent. It may be management or labour trouble, but the fact is that inefficiency in industry exists to a far greater extent than one realises. Considerable reduction of output is due to wives having to leave their work in order to do their shopping;. No one will work overtime on a Friday evening, for that reason. I cannot see that it is not a feasible proposition to stagger factory paydays, particularly in a city like Birmingham. I feel convinced that, if that was done, a lot of production time could be saved. It would be a very simple experiment, and T do not think anyone would object, particularly the workers.
Then considerable complication is caused through different instructions from different Departments, and there are the various purchasing Departments wanting delivery. If the Admiralty want their particular order delivered, they have not the slightest respect for the Minister of Supply or the Minister of Air. They tumble over one another and do not care at all what happens to other Ministers provided they get delivery of their particular contract. If it was an ordinary commercial concern, there would be a head who would be able to say which job should be put in hand first. There is a solution to the problem, and I cannot think why it has not been put into force. It is to have a real priority system. It is impossible to run an organisation such as this nation has to run without it. It would solve a great many of the manufacturers' difficulties and problems. If a battleship was the first thing wanted, everything in connection with it should have first priority. Surely it is not beyond the power of the Government to organise such a system and let the manufacturer know which job is wanted first and not allow one Department to push another out.
With regard to the placing of contracts, sufficient consideration is not given to where the contracts should go. We in Birmingham have a complete organisation for the manufacture of beds. A contract was recently placed for 100,000. The powers-that-be sent us 17 per cent., and the rest go to other parts of the country, with the result that we shall have men standing idle. Is it efficient production? Does it contribute to bigger output by starting a new organisation 10 miles out of Birmingham when the existing plant is in position in Birmingham and has to be changed over for other purposes? Then there is delay in getting full information. I came across a case the other day in which thousands of tubes of a certain type were required. To give some idea of the tubes I may say that they cost 1s. 3d. each. On 9th April they were ordered verbally. The firm got written authority on 14th June. On 24th June they got the contract. They are still without the official order, and all the time the Department concerned has been worrying the firm to get the delivery time reduced from 12 to 10 weeks. I know that all those concerned have their difficulties and are doing their best. I know that the majority of people, whether Government officials, employers or employed, are doing their best. On the other hand, I think that a Debate of this description in which constructive criticism can be made, will be of some use to the country, and I hope the Government will listen to the advice that has been given.

Mr. Granville: We have had a number of Debates on supply and production, and I am glad that this one will not become a series of recriminations on absenteeism, because we shall never deal with the problem of getting the maximum output in that way. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs) that this House can make a contribution by offering constructive suggestions and criticisms. Since the last Debate on this subject the Government have announced certain changes. Lord Beaverbrook, who was previously in charge of aeroplane production, has gone to the Ministry of Supply to be in charge of a tank drive. My right hon. and gallant Friend the former Minister of Transport has followed him at the Ministry of Aircraft Production. Yesterday the Minister of Labour announced the setting-up of a new Central Committee


and the re-forming of the Area Supply Boards. Also, since the last Debate the Government have announced certain changes with regard to the Production Executive, the personnel of the Defence Committee on Supply and the Imports Committee. Everybody wishes well to the Minister of Aircraft Production. He has a great reputation for courage and an unorthodox mind, and it is rumoured that on one occasion he referred to the Civil Service as being like an inverted Micawber waiting for something to turn down. I hope that we shall not have to remind him of that and that the Government will bear in mind that we still require aircraft production as well as tank production.
The single test of all these changes is output. In January the Government said it was hoped that by the end of this year or the beginning of next we would, in the air and on land, be at no disadvantage so far as equipment was concerned, with the German foe. We may not for various reasons be able to reach that end, but, as the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) said in his interesting speech to-day, what is happening in Russia is giving industry in this country another great opportunity to reach equality with Nazi mechanisation. Germany is losing and using a great deal of her equipment in that vast war extending over a whole Continent, and it is our opportunity, i£we can but create an efficient war organisation with the help of American supplies, to reach equality for the battles that will be beginning in the autumn. On the whole, I welcome the changes which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour announced yesterday. Anything which is in the direction of closer cooperation must be right, and yet I must confess that I felt some sense of disappointment. There seems to be no new ideas about this question of production. It is an extraordinary thing that with so many Labour representatives in the Government and, with the Minister of Labour—speaking with the greatest respect for his efforts—as Chairman of the Production Committee, there is such a lack of new ideas upon this vital problem. There seems to be a belief that if you can get the unions and the bosses sitting together at a table, you will get increased war production.
The experience of the last few months has shown that speed in decisions, in emergencies and in applying new methods is the key to output under war conditions. The Minister of Labour's new committee will not deal with wages but will advise in the main upon production. Production, particularly war production, is run by production engineers, designers, executives, metallurgists, and skilled organisers. They are the brains of modern production methods, but that type of mind, which is essential to modern production, will not be represented upon the committee which the right hon. Gentleman has set up. There seems to be a good deal of confusion in the minds of some people as to what industry represents to-day. It is not a question of shareholders, employers, and trade union leaders sitting round a table. Most of the management in almost all this newly extended war production industry is undoubtedly in the hands of executive staffs. These are the individuals whose methods, whose mind, and whose production ideas are responsible in the main for organising, planning and running this industry. Yet they will not be represented on this new committee. The general experience—and it has been referred to by the Minister of Labour and the President of the Board of Trade—is that where in industry there is individual leadership, perhaps over the whole of the industry, there is little trouble, but where, as my hon. Friend opposite has said on a number of occasions, there are new factories, there is a shortage of skilled management. It is here in the main that the troubles begin. Under war conditions you are bound to get a certain dislocation of transport, you are bound to get a certain amount of what is called absenteeism. In my view absenteeism is not always the fault of the worker. There is nothing so demoralising to a workman as to stand by an idle machine when the management do not appear to be unduly worried. This problem really comes under the head of war industrial maladministration.
Under war conditions you get a certain shortage of materials at the actual machines, but we are fighting the Battle of the Atlantic, and we have to put up with various difficulties because of the dislocation of transport. The greatest problem that the Government and those


Ministers who are responsible for running the war industry of this country will have to face in the coming months will be to get the maximum output from the actual materials which we are able to get to the machines. That is a problem which designers, production engineers, the Royal Aeronautical Society and the Society of British Aircraft Constructors have to face every day. The more the experts can save materials, machines and man-power by new methods, new ideas, new systems and new organisation the more tanks and planes we shall get—under war conditions in which we are subject to attack from the air. Frankly, I believe that to be the crux of this problem, and industrial leaders will have to deal with it in the coining winter, but I do not see the minds that understand that point of view, understand the importance of the technician and of the skilled modern organiser, represented on this Committee. I see them in industry, I see them among some of the younger technical workers in the country, and I see them at the Ministry of Aircraft Production and at the Ministry of Supply, but I do not see them at the top and in the Government planning programmes and production.
There are two ways in which to get production under war conditions. One is the method of drive exemplified by Lord Beaverbrook, and the other is the method referred to by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) on numerous occasions, of engineers planning and organisation. If they compete on priorities one simply robs the other, although of course war strategy should be the determining factor with priorities. I agree with the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro-Jones) that after all the experiments which have been tried in personnel and method the best thing would be that this whole problem should be under a single Minister for War Production. I read in the Press, yesterday I think, that the Prime Minister is to make a broadcast on the home front. There should be a loud speaker in every workshop. It is just as important for him to be heard in the workshops as it is for him to visit the Services, or gun positions, or R.A.F. stations, for, as has often been said, the lessons of Crete are to be applied in the workshops, and the victories of tomorrow, if we are to achieve them, must be planned in the workshops.
It is not enough to say that 200,000,000 free men are fighting 70,000,000 slaves. We have to match them in organisation, in production and in mechanisation. As Mr. Wendell Willkie has said, if free men and democracy cannot match Nazi organisation and Nazi mechanisation, then our way of life is on the way out. I appeal to the Prime Minister. It is not enough to leave it to the departmental mind, because we often get conflicting pronunciamentos in the country over the week-end. The Prime Minister has an authority that no one else in this country enjoys. Let him do what I believe he has not yet been able to do—go to the microphone and appeal to the workers, telling them what is wanted, telling them of some of the difficulties. By such direct contact between the Prime Minister and the workpeople we shall make them feel that they are a vital part of the war effort. Every workshop should have its own loud speaker, to enable the executive to explain delays and difficulties in production and to take the workers into their confidence. Every factory on war production should have a joint committee of management and men on output.
I observe, Colonel Clifton Brown, that you are looking at the clock, and I must make my speech short. In conclusion I would say that it would seem that there is a period in the life of every Government when compromise and committees tend to take the place of bold action. We ask for an Empire war cabinet, and we get an extension from Washington to Cairo and Transport House. We ask for a Ministry of Propaganda and we get the Lord President and another committee. We ask for a Ministry of Production, and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Labour announces another committee of trade unionists and the employers' federation. What we have to learn is that committees produce only recurring troubles. In my judgment, this Debate will have served some purpose in that it has enabled the Government to get contact with the House of Commons and public opinion, which is the best antidote to the committee mind. I hope that when the Minister of Aircraft Production and my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply make their replies they will tell us that we are to undertake an industrial drive which will give this country equality of equipment by the time we have to face


the coining battles in the attempted invasion of this country.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: I am very glad that the Minister of Aircraft Production is in the House, because in the main my remarks will be addressed rather to him than to the Minister of Supply. I think we may congratulate ourselves on his promotion to that office, and already there are signs that things are going to be better in the future than they have been in the past at that Ministry. What I want the Committee and the country to understand in the first instance is that the vast majority of people are labouring under the most fallacious impression that it is possible to imagine. The general view is that among all the failures of the various Ministries there is one bright star, and it is the Ministry of Aircraft Production. As a matter of fact it is not fair to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has the task of cleaning out that Augean stable—and it is an almost superhuman task—to say that the stable is like a modern hygienic cowshed to start with, because it is not. We must remember that aircraft production has been run on the lines of a cheap newspaper stunt for the last year or thereabouts.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: The goods were delivered.

Mr. Hopkinson: The goods were not delivered and are not being delivered yet. If the hon. Gentleman doubts what I say, I may as well tell the Committee some of the facts. We are told that, in the Battle of Britain, owing to the efforts of the late Minister of Aircraft Production, we were able to put many Spitfires and Hurricanes into the air and overcome the attacks of our enemies. I must ask the Committee to believe me in this matter, when I say that not one aircraft took part in the Battle of Britain that had anything to do with the late Minister of Aircraft Production. People seem to think that a man can go to a Ministry of this sort and produce aircraft in five or six weeks. One of the elementary facts about the industry is that it takes about one year and a half to get anything going. The results of the late Minister's methods will develop from now onwards. The unfortunate gentleman who has to clear up

all the mess will be criticised again and again for his apparent failure to produce the goods. I warn the Committee and the country that they will be treating the present Minister with the grossest injustice if they expect him to put the thing straight within the next six months or so. It just cannot be done. The whole thing is chaos from top to bottom. Having said that—

Mr. Granville: Can the hon. Gentleman give his authority for that statement?

Mr. Hopkinson: Yes, Sir, my authority is myself. I have been an observer in this matter for a long time as a manufacturer, and in my official duties. I would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to for give me if I read him a small lecture on the subject of aircraft production. No doubt he is aware of nearly all the points but they will reinforce what he is doing. I think he will agree with me that the main trouble with aircraft production is that we started wrong, back in the days of Lord Swinton. We perpetrated every possible mistake. We never realised that, in the absence of competitive tender there is no instigation to a manufacturer to be either efficient in his designs or in his contraction. In the ordinary industrial world the man whose designs are bad or whose construction is inefficient does not get the order, which goes to someone else whose designs are better and whose methods of production are more efficient. When you remove that stimulant from industry you must put something else in its place or you get the result that we have at present.
Anybody who has investigated again and again, as I have, the designs of details of our aircraft knows that, in many cases, they are preposterous. They seem to be aimed at making the thing immensely difficult and immensely expensive. The reason is that designers are men who are just as lazy as anybody else and that fact shows in their work. You have to watch your draughtsmen to see that they do not wriggle out of the technical difficulties of design. I have brought to the notice of the Minister recently the case of a part that has to be carved out of a solid block of steel by sheer craftsmanship, because the design is bad. I pointed out that as the draughtsman went along he shirked every technical difficulty until they all


accumulated on this particular piece. That is not an isolated case; we get the same thing again and again in aircraft production. Again, we have cylinders designed with a blind end that have to be bored to half a thousandth of an inch to a depth of about 24 inches. The Minister knows as well as I do that that is a perfectly mad way of doing it. The thing should be open-ended if you wish to produce on a large scale with reasonable speed. The ends must be made of a separate piece from the rest.
I do not want to go into all these technical details, but I want to show that something must be done to take the place of the spur provided by competitive tender in order to secure efficient production and design. Good design is when the particular apparatus fulfils its function in the simplest possible way. Bad design is when it fulfils its function, but not in the simplest way. Bad design of aircraft has cost the country hundreds of millions of pounds. I see the First Lord of the Admiralty present. His Department solved these problems many years ago. There is no real competition in naval construction, but over many years the Admiralty has gradually built up two things that take its place in regulating design. The Admiralty has the Corps of Naval Constructors and it has the Royal Dockyards, and the Aircraft Ministry ought to have their equivalents.
Long ago I put this matter up to Lord Swinton, and I have brought it up again and again in this House. What is wanted in the Aircraft Ministry is a corps of technicians of such standing that they can talk severely to the designers of aircraft. Secondly, having got control of design, you must have a Government-controlled works where processes can be tried out in order to get some idea as to what should be the cost of production. I remember that 30 years ago the Admiralty used to think that, if a ship cost £750,000 at Devonport, that was a suitable price to offer contractors. The contractors used to rejoice, but by long experience the Admiralty has learnt a great deal and now if any particular job would cost £750,000 in a Royal Dockyard, the Admiralty knows perfectly well that £600,000 is a suitable price to offer a contractor.

Mr. Bevan: Surely my hon. Friend recollects that in the last war Government production of shells was much cheaper than private manufacture?

Mr. Hopkinson: I can give an example where certain engine parts were handed over to be made by a contractor, at a cost of 2¾d. each. Subsequently a dockyard took charge of them, and I think their price was is. 6d. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see what he can do.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I agree with all that the hon. Member says about the value of the Royal Dockyards, but I do not agree for a moment that costs in the Royal Dockyards are higher than in private shops.

Mr. Hopkinson: It is all very well to say that building up a corps of technicians is very difficult. How are we to find the right men, and afterwards to get them, to serve—on the scale of salaries the Ministry is in a position to offer? Both these difficulties can be overcome, and I have taken the trouble to investigate them. First, it is possible to find out who are the right men. The Air Inspection Department have their own inspectors in all the aircraft and engine works in the country. Although the lower ranks of the A.I.D. are not very capable—they can just use a micrometer and nothing more—the upper ranks are real engineers and are capable people. They know exactly who are the real workers in the aircraft industry. The public knows of Mr. This and Mr. That, who get the rake off and talk of themselves as manufacturers, while really they are financiers and share pushers; but someone is doing the work somewhere in the aircraft industry, and the people who know who is doing it are the A.I.D. inspectors who are always on the spot. So the A.I.D. inspectors should be able to tell the right hon. Gentleman who are the right people to get hold of.
Now I come to the question of salaries. Salaries are grossly inflated in the munitions industry, and particularly in the aircraft industry, partly as a natural result of 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax, and Government Departments cannot possibly offer anything comparable without getting into trouble with the House of Commons. The question is, therefore, how to get the best men to come. One fact in the situation is that all these technicians know that after the war it is highly probable that they will be on the street. They were after the last war, and


it is very likely that it will happen again. If, therefore, you are seeking to build up a Corps of Aircraft Constructors, on somewhat similar lines to the Corps of Naval Constructors, with security of tenure, I think you will find that even men with family obligations would accept much lower salaries than they can now obtain from private manufacturers. I offer these suggestions to the right hon. Gentleman because I think that on these points my mind works more or less on the same line as his.
Another mistake is the method of contract, which in essence depends upon the wages expenditure. Everybody in the aircraft world from the office-boy upwards knows that the more man-hours that are consumed, and the more man-hours of overtime, the better it is going to be for everybody, because where you have a fixed percentage on wages cost for standing charges, doubling the wages cost leaves twice as much money to play with, twice as much to buy another Rolls-Royce car "on the firm," to buy a house "on the firm "—as I believe is done sometimes —and to employ all your poor relations at exorbitant salaries. If you spend too much in such ways, all you have to do is to make the jobs cost a little more in wages, and then things are square. It is all very well to say that the contract system has been revised, but it always come back to the same thing in the end, that it actually pays to use 80,000 man-hours to produce an aircraft that could be produced with 20,000 man-hours.
A further point is this; for, unfortunately, every mistake Lord Swinton made has been perpetuated ever since. He announced first of all that he was going to adopt a big programme of Air Force expansion, and those who know something about commerce and industry at once concluded that his policy would be to enlarge the market as far as possible before going into it as a purchaser. It is the first thing one learns in business: if you are going to buy, go to the biggest market. However, what does he do but say he is not going to deal with any one except certain selected people? Of course, they formed a ring straight away, and to make certain that the ring did not break he went further and said that there must be some one to see that the ring spoke with one voice, and to see that no one reduced prices to the Air Ministry.

It was a most remarkable performance. I brought these matters up before Lord Swinton years ago, and I was met with the objection that we had a cost accounting system which would act as a control. I would, however, venture to point out— I did so years ago and have done so in season and out of season ever since—that a cost accounting system does not control costs; it merely registers them. It tells you that such an aircraft has cost so much to produce; it says nothing as to what it ought to cost. There is no way of finding that out except producing it yourself. That is why I would very strongly advocate not that we should have a second Farnborough, as in the last war, where we tried to produce aircraft in bulk without much success, but that we should have some works where all the operations can be performed, possibly on a fairly small scale. One or two aircraft which were unsatisfactory might be produced, but the knowledge which the Ministry would gain as to the processes and what the costs ought to be would be valuable. It is said again and again that money is no object. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made that obvious to the House and the country; but man-hours, which are another name for money, are valuable.
That brings me to the last part of the indictment. The labour position in the aircraft works and in munition works generally is really getting appalling at the present time. The men themselves say that they are not producing what they should because of the incompetence of the management. The management say that it is due to the laziness and absenteeism of the men. The horrible fact of the matter is that both are right up to the hilt. It is due to the laziness of the men and the incompetence of the management, and anyone who knows anything about aircraft factories must be bound to endorse that. But I find, up and down the country, in the aircraft firms, an unofficial movement starting among the men themselves, who are absolutely disgusted with the state of affairs and the circumstances in which they are working. I have had the case of a craftsman of my own who, unfortunately, like many good craftsmen, was a little bit "difficult." This gentleman, having picked a quarrel with the management, went into another aircraft factory. After a few weeks he came back, and on inquiry, when we took him on


again, he said, "I was just fed up and disgusted. I could not do any work and did not see any prospect of being able to do any." He came back to the old job at a lower rate. I tell that because it is simply what is happening in the workshops at the present time.
Men have still a pride of craftsmanship in spite of all these automatic tools and processes, and that pride is undoubtedly being harrowed by the incompetence which exists in many workshops, and above all by the incompetence with which labour is being handled by the Government at the present time. It was unwise to put in charge of the whole labour force of this country a man who, the craftsmen say, is only an unskilled labourer after all. Members may think that the craftsman is a snob. So he is, but there is something more than snobbery in his resentment at being dominated by the unskilled labourer. Pride in craftsmanship may be allied to snobbery, but it is one of the most valuable things we have got in this country.

Mr. Marshall: That is an absolute travesty.

Mr. Hopkinson: My own information is not in accordance with what the hon. Member says. If the Committee really sits down and thinks over this matter it will, I imagine, agree that to some extent the handling of labour during the past twelve months has been stupid to the last degree, that enormous powers have been taken to effect all sorts of drastic compulsion of labour, but have not' been exercised.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is getting close to the Ministry of Labour Vote.

Mr. Bevan: Would it not be possible for anyone who wished to make a rejoinder to the latter part of the hon. Member's speech to do so?

Mr. John Wilmot: Was the hon. Member referring to the Minister of Labour just now?

Mr. Hopkinson: I was referring to him when I said that the labour question had been grossly mishandled for the last 12 months.

Mr. Marshall: Would it not have been fairer to have made that remark when the Minister was present?

The Deputy-Chairman: I have given a ruling on this subject. We had better leave it now.

Mr. Garro Jones: The hon. Member has made a most offensive remark in relation to a Member of the War Cabinet, that in regard to his origin he was an unskilled labourer. Even the skilled labourers who, he alleges, refer to the Minister in that way—and I do not believe that for a moment—were once unskilled. Because a man has the ability and skill to raise himself from the ranks, to a position of a high administrative responsibility, as has been done in every walk of life by Cabinet Ministers in every party, it is most unfortunate and offensive to make such a remark.

Mr. Hopkinson: On the question of being offensive, I give way to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. We cannot pursue this matter now, but it may be possible to pursue it further on the Ministry of Labour vote.
Another point in our policy that appears to be totally wrong is this. In ordinary commercial engineering, for instance, if a mistake is made the customer insists on it being made right, but in aircraft manufacture it is different. If a mistake is made it becomes a subject of a '' modification '' and payment is made for putting right the mistake. It does not make for efficiency in design if an aircraft designer knows that the more errors he makes in his design the more money he is going to gain for his firm. I hope that point will be looked into. But, as I have said, the labour question is really the most serious of the whole lot. There is however this movement of which I have spoken developing among the aircraft workers themselves, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and others in his department will look out for it and will endeavour to guide it into proper and reasonable channels, so as to make use of the good spirit which really exists among the workers. From my experience of employing labour my own conclusion is that the vast bulk of skilled labour has a very definite idea of what constitutes a day's work. I admit that my own view of what constitutes a day's work does not always tally with that of my men, but nevertheless they have their standard and, in the main, act up to it. But at the present time everyone knows


that the standard has gone down very seriously indeed, and I think it is for the right hon. Gentleman opposite to go very carefully with his advisers into the matter to see if he cannot improve a state of affairs which, at the present time, is disgraceful to the aircraft industry. It is really shocking to see the waste of labour. I had an example the other day. A particular part of a certain type of aircraft made by a firm of worldwide reputation, was paid for on the supposition that fitting and assembling it would take 8¼ hours. The first time one of my men undertook the job, he completed it in 2½ hours. And that sort of thing is well nigh' universal. Unless such substitutes for competitive tender as I have advocated to-day are brought into action the aircraft industry will continue to be, as in the past, the worst blot of all the blots on the productive system of this country.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I have been looking forward to this Debate for some time, because I anticipated that the apprehension which is fairly general throughout the working class in this country would be expressed. The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) has confirmed, from an expert point of view, what is being felt by the workers. There is a sourness in our national effort, because of the lack of will being displayed in our production. Our people realise that the tide has turned, and that we can win the war if only we get down to it. But they fail to see that resolution in production which alone will bring us victory. There has been much loose talk about the responsibility being upon the workers, about absenteeism, both in aircraft production and in production under the Ministry of Supply. Much of that talk has been regarded as a smoke-screen to cover up widespread managerial inefficiency. When that criticism has come from Members of this House who occupy two full-time jobs, and draw two full-time salaries, it causes a sullen anger that goes to the very root of our industrial effort. Equally, in this House there has not been that response which one would have expected from the Government. They have shown considerable touchiness over criticism, especially in regard to these two Departments. My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell)

has only to make one of his trenchant criticisms—which are invariably right—in order to get scowls from the benches opposite. Apparently, all the brains and all the directive ability remain on that side. There has been a resentment of criticism.

Mr. Bevan: It is not confined to that side.

Mr. Edwards: I agree that prejudice has been shown on both sides. If criticism is to be resented, why not do the right thing, and shut down this House? The enemies of criticism are the enemies of democracy, and this House can flourish only if we can represent here those points of view which are expressed in our constituencies. It is surprising that every time this question of managerial proficiency and general production is raised, those most abject in their general loyalty to the Prime Minister seek every opportunity to be as disloyal as they can to his Cabinet colleagues, as if they give too much with one hand and therefore want to withdraw with the other. The Minister of Labour has been attacked, as though he had any control over labour after it had entered the factories.

Mr. Hopkinson: He has that control. I cannot sack a man; only he can do so.

Mr. Edwards: It is true that he has power to stop a man from being sacked; but he has no power to make an employer take a man on, and no power to see that a man's time is usefully occupied. The employer controls the man. He may misuse skill and man-power, and the Minster of Labour cannot interfere. It is wrong to blame the Minister for the misuse of labour; and my hon. Friend is wholly misinformed. As for all this criticism of absenteeism, especially when it is uttered in this House, I would suggest that there might be something in the demands for penalties if such demands were first implemented here. Let us have an absentee penalty for Members of Parliament first. What is good for someone else is good for us; and if it is not good for us, it is not good for others.
Why did we want public criticism of these two Departments? Is it not because it has been the experience of Members that whether we make representations direct to the Minister in this House or in secret, we are unable to get any satisfaction?


Many Members have raised questions, and have been unable to get any satisfactory answers to give to their constituents. My experience has been no different probably from that of many others. Up and down this country there is a loud demand that this fooling with our resources should come to an end. I think everybody is satisfied that resources are being fooled with in a very general way. Here we are, on the very knife-edge of catastrophe, and still we get this tremendous wastage in industry. Let me give examples to show the treatment that Members individually have had when attempting to raise these questions by the usual Parliamentary method. Some time ago an hon. Member put down a Question to the Minister of Supply about a certain factory which was engaged in the production of both shells and aircraft. Most of the capital had been provided by the State. It was being run by the subsidiary of a Birmingham firm. It was run in such a way as to ruin completely the morale of the people in the valley where the factory was. Signed documents were submitted to the Ministry as to conditions in the factory. The firm was charged with financial manipulation, with inefficiency, with nepotism, with allowing drunkenness on the premises, with wastage of labour and of materials. There was a charge that men had to buy their jobs and that, having bought their jobs, they had to share money that they had never earned with members of the management. A Question was put down, and the answer was just a formal one, that a report had been received from an inspector. That was an end to it. It was only when there was a threat to raise the matter in this House that thorough investigation was made. What was the answer?
 Most of the troubles at this, factory have been attributable to inefficiency and the improper behaviour of the managerial and supervisory staff. Radical changes have been made; in the staff; those members of it whom my reports show have been thoroughly unsatisfactory have been dismissed and others have received severe warnings as to their future conduct.
That answer was received four months after the question was originally raised, and it would not have been given then if the hon. Member concerned had not threatened to raise the matter on the Adjournment. My criticism applies both to the Ministry of Supply and to the Ministry of Aircraft Production. There is no satisfactory examination of questions

raised in this House by hon. Members. With regard to complaints from persons employed, neither Department has an adequate staff to make an investigation; and even to-day, I have no confidence that any complaint in this House will be satisfactorily investigated by Ministers.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Mr. Montague): Does the hon. Member say that that is true of the particular works referred to? Does he not agree that the matter had the most complete examination possible, and that, as a result, conditions have continually improved, until there is at least a prospect of all his complaints being completely met?

Mr. Edwards: I am extremely sorry that my hon. Friend should have intervened. It may well have been that I created a situation in which he could not help but intervene. I am satisfied that if a Member puts a Question upon the Order Paper he will get a formal reply, and I am equally satisfied that, unless he is prepared to make himself a nuisance, it will not go any further. I am not quite satisfied that the investigation in relation to the incident to which my hon. Friend now refers is going to produce results. What are the facts? They are, that a widow of 40 years of age, whose only son is entering the Air Force this month, had employment in a factory. She was there for five weeks, and because she asked for something to do she got the sack. That is the question which is being investigated, and it has been going on now for six weeks, and the woman, who may have to sacrifice her only son, is still on the dole because she asked for work in order to assist in providing the tools for her son to do his job. The Ministry of Supply may take up the attitude that they are inadequately staffed and that they will make an examination. I have been trying to get some satisfaction about another Question that has been put down on the Order Paper, and to which a merely formal reply was given. I was so disturbed about the matter that I put four questions into a private letter, and this is what I asked:
Was this man dismissed in order that a re-examination of a stock of some 10,000 shells might be proceeded with?
There are 10,000 shells which have been rejected and have been lying there wasting


for 12 months, with all these clamant calls for salvage. I asked also whether this examiner had been dismissed so that this stock might be re-examined. The next question I asked was whether the allegation that this man had supplied information to a Member of Parliament had anything to do with his dismissal. I further asked whether it was because this examiner refused to dine at the expense of the firm generally that he was dismissed, and whether his membership of a trade union had anything whatever to do with it. I had a reply, and I was told that these things had nothing to do with it. But the man has not been seen or interviewed, and his view has not been taken into account. I am satisfied that, on this side of our war effort, there must be an adequate staff. I am not blaming the Minister. The present Joint Parliamentary Secretary who has recently gone into the Department, I know, has taken a strong line, and I know that he had to take a strong line in his Department to get done what is now being done, but I am satisfied that these examinations must be strengthened in both Departments.
Let me come to more general matters. The hon. gentleman who preceded me said that there is among the workers in our factories a new feeling, and that they are beginning to show their resentment at the way in which their labour is being less used. I had recently a large number of letters dealing with the wastage of labour in these factories. I want briefly to quote some of these which I have sanction and authority to use here. A man in a Welsh aircraft factory says that from the way the work is carried on, one would think it was controlled by the fifth column. He refers to being idle for a week as there was nothing to do, and calls attention to the case of one big aircraft firm that sent down jigs. These were operated and worked upon for three months, and at the end of that time were discovered to be wrong, and the whole of the work had to be scrapped. That is in an area where you are asking miners to sweat themselves to death in order to get more coal, and yet we hear of this wastage of labour and material. Here is an extract from a letter from an engineer at a works in South London, vouched for

by a man with a very distinguished name. It says:
Still at X Factory but not happy. One would not dream there was a war on, if you knew how little is done. The best part of time is spent getting rid of time.
I take the case of another great factory, one of the big five, one of the aircraft ring. What do they say there? Here is a man who says that he was so fed up that he tried to join the Army and the Air Force. He was a top-rate fitter earning or receiving money for wasting time. He says that he is not the only one. The 2,000 men employed here are not earning one-third of their wages. He says: —
I am willing to take anyone around, to talk to the men, even if it means losing my job.… I got fed up and tried to join the Army and the Air Force. Nothing doing. I am reserved.
I have a letter from another great aircraft factory in Coventry, one of the big five. It says: —
It makes us sick to go to work day after day and having nothing to do, when we know that not only service men, but civilians too, are having to work beyond their endurance. … Have not done a day's work in over a week. We spend the day there trying to make cups of tea. … If we ask our charge-hand or foreman about it all they can say is 'It's a pity, but there is nothing we can do about it.
Those are samples of letters showing the apprehension in the minds of the workers in these various factories. You charge men with delaying production because of absenteeism, but what is the use of keeping a man in a factory kicking his heels all day and then blaming him because he takes a day off at his own expense? The Ministry of Supply is in the same position. I want to tell the Committee of an interesting experience I had on Monday. A number of Members of Parliament, including myself, visited certain factories. The first factory, which is producing aircraft components, was an excellent factory, working, I should think, to maximum pressure. The next factory, producing plugs, was working at equal pressure. There had been certain bottlenecks in the factory. There had been certain delays. The manager said that he would not hide it from us. There was a process board on the wall, and it said that for a certain section, there was no work on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. The manager said, "I wanted you to see that. I would rather explain these


delays to you myself than that someone else should tell you about it." He was decent and open about the whole thing.
We went to another factory engaged on aircraft engines. I do not know whether the management of the factory thought that we were a lot of inexperienced fools or not, but when we got into the shops we found first a great stock of aircraft engines which had been pulled out for examination. We got into the first shop where things were fairly busy. When we got into the next shop everyone had on a gleaming white coat. Everybody was standing over the benches. The place had been swept out. We just stood there and watched. I watched one man, with three other men looking at him, for ten minutes. He turned a nut on a bolt five times and took it off five times, and I said to the fellow who was showing us round, "Will you tell me what he is doing or are you deceiving us?"
That is the sort of thing that was going on in that section of the factory. We went to other parts of the factory, and when I looked back to see what was happening in this great shop they were all having a general conversation. Not only that, but I heard about half an hour before our arrival that the shop bells had been rung to let them know we were coming. The men picked up bits of old machinery, put them on the bench and fiddled about with them in order to create the impression that they were doing their job. That has a worse effect on the men in that factory than on Members of Parliament. We felt we were being deceived. Here was a job which was being financed by Government money, yet hundreds of thousands of skilled men's time was being wasted while Members of Parliament were being deceived into believing that this was a hive of industry.
I do not want to go into the general considerations about absenteeism in some of the factories which have responsibility for arranging the transport system. They ought to exercise far more care than they are doing. The week-end before last a deputation representing 300 men came to see me. They were men who had travelled to an aircraft factory by train for several weeks previously. Then the factory altered the time of the train, and the men were left without any means of getting to the factory. The same thing can be said

about buses and general transport. A country that allows buses to be hired for race-meetings and cannot find them to convey workers to munition factories is asking for defeat. That is what is happening in South Wales. Moreover, by our present rationing system the women who are most patriotic and go into a factory to do a Government job are penalised for their patriotism. They get their ordinary rationed goods but have to hunt round for other unrationed goods. They are penalised because of the rotten rationing system we have in operation.
I do not want to talk about the lack of co-ordination and planning in connection with aircraft production, but I do want to submit that the will to victory on the part of our men is being sapped by these obvious, unexplained deficiencies in our war effort. It is the job of those responsible to explain to the men what is happening. In my street there is a collier who is being asked to work himself to death in order to produce more coal. He receives £4 a week, yet his daughter who works in a munition factory and comes home and says that she has been gossiping all day, gets more money than he does. What effect will that have on the enthusiasm which ought to be brought to our national effort? There must be proper planning of our war production and I would like to see a committee of Members from both sides of the House, unconnected with the Government, to whom anybody in the country might complain of any lack of efficiency in the section with which he or she is concerned. There ought to be put up in each factory engaged on Government contracts a notice inviting the management or men who see anything wrong in our national effort in that factory, to come immediately to that committee, with the guarantee that there will be no victimisation. I am sure that applies as much to managements as to men.

Sir Richard Acland: And the Civil Service.

Mr. Edwards: And the Civil Service. We have complained that our boys do not get the tools with which to do the job. Members of Parliament are not getting the information. Too often have military defeats been the occasion for Parliamentary triumphs in this House. Mili-


tary victory can only be secured in the workshops. Victory depends entirely upon effective workshop production and unless we see to it, we shall deserve our fate. Fate has treated us kindly so far, but she will not continue to treat kindly those who are always too late.

Mr. Horabin: I do not intend to follow my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) in the details of the important questions he has raised. I want to speak for a few minutes on a more general question. Apart from Lord Beaverbrook, we have had three Ministers of Supply since the war broke out. We have had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Luton (Mr.. Burgin), the present Home Secretary and the present President of the Board of Trade. Each in turn assured us that production Was well in hand. They appeared to satisfy the House of Commons for a time and certainly the Government have been satisfied by those statements. We have had a Production Council which met with a great deal of criticism from Members in all parts of the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). The Government were warned that it would not work. Now we have the Production Executive and the Minister of Labour, who is the chairman of the body, who told the country not so many months ago that we would attain parity with Germany in something like six months.
After all this, what is the position of the Government at the present time? They have had to appoint Lord Beaverbrook as Minister of Supply to speed up production. That is a reflection on his predecessors; it condemns the organisation that the Government evolved for our war production and shows that their efforts have not met with success. Obviously, that must be so, because, if our organisation for war production was effective, would it have been necessary for them to reduce Lord Beaverbrook from the high peak Of Minister of State to the lower level of Minister of Supply? I will not bother about details to-day but I want to say that we shall not get the high level of production we require unless we achieve the pooling of our factories. I think that is

borne out by what the Minister of Labour is reported to have said in the country last Week end. He said that he has over 1,000,000 workers waiting but has not the factories into which he can put them. Did the right hon. Gentleman say this or not? Has the Government 1,000,000 workers waiting, or is that statement so much ballyhoo? Are there the factories? If we have not the factories at the present moment, Why, after nearly two years of war, have we not got them and whose responsibility is it? Is it the responsibility of Lord Beaverbrook or of the Minister of Labour? How long will it be before we get these factories? These methods of the Minister of Labour seem to me to be on a par with his appeal to the employers to release 20,000 coal-miners for work in the pits at the present time. The coal situation is serious, as we all know, and the Government even admit that it is serious. Suppose that the eloquence of the Minister of Labour fails to achieve his aim, suppose that he fails to get the employers to send these men back to the pits, what does he intend to do? Will he force the employers to send them back, or will he make another speech?
What ought to be done to build up our production to the high levels which all of us recognise to be required at the present time? What is needed? Surely, it is something which has been said again and again in the House, and which has been said again to-day by a number of hon. Members. What is heeded Is a single Ministry of Munitions covering all fields of war production. One hon. Member said that a superman would be required for the job. I ask hon. Members not to be misled in this matter. That is not what is required. What is required is a cleat statement of Government policy about production, and then they must find the men—and plenty are available for the purpose—who will execute that policy under the control of a single Minister responsible for the whole field of war production.
Many detailed questions have been raised to-day, questions which show that shocking conditions exist in our factories on the production side. What reply is the Government going to make to the Debate? I can tell hon. Members what the reply will be. The Government will say, once again, that our production is


all right now because he have got Lord Beaverbrook on the job and he will deliver the goods. Nothing that hon. Members have said to-day, or will say in the course of the Debate, will influence the Government one little bit. They will simply reply that we have got Lord Beaverbrook now, and they will shield themselves behind him. What is Lord Beaverbrook going to do? Is he to deal with the bottlenecks that affect a few of the primary weapons, or is he so to organise production that at last we shall get all our divisions fully armed, and get the guns for our airfields and our merchant ships, which are so sadly lacking at the present time? I can tell the Government with absolute certainty that Within a month the House will want to have some report on the progress which Lord Beaverbrook is making. Is the Prime Minister then going to carry out another temporary adjustment of his team in order to allay criticism? Will he then conduct another of his games of musical chairs in which the losing Minister is exiled to one of the four corners of the earth? Is the Prime Minister at long last going to face what almost every hon. Member believes to be necessary at the present time? Is he going to appoint a Minister of Munitions" with full powers over the whole field of war production?

Mr. Hammersley: I do not propose to deal with the whole problem of the production of war weapons, but only with a very limited aspect of the problem. I would like to lead up to what I have to say by making one or two preliminary observations, and I hope hon. Members will forgive me if they consider that these preliminary observations are as trite and obvious as they appear to be to me. The rapid production in large quantities of materials of war in works requires three things. It requires a planned supply of raw materials, efficient management, and the wholehearted co-operation of the workers. The planning of the supply of raw materials involves the very large question of priorities. The co-operation of the workpeople involves the grave and serious problem of a national wages policy. I do not propose to deal with either of those two very large aspects of the problem. I shall confine myself to the question of efficient management, and efficient management in respect of one

specific part of our war production effort, that is, the efficient management of the production of tanks.
I use the word "management" in its widest possible sense. In the management of the production of tanks, one has to bring in the Ministry of Supply, because the Ministry of Supply are virtually responsible for the management of tank production, and in that respect there is room for great improvement. In effect, a tank is an assembly of parts which are made in various places in the country and taken to the assembly shops and there put together. The Ministry of Supply have taken upon themselves the duty of seeing that these parts arrive at the assembly shops in good time and in good order. The crux of the problem is that they do not. At present, as the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) said in his opening speech, there is a very large number of tanks— it would be wrong to give the number—which are held up in the assembly shops because the various parts have not arrived in their proper order and in due time. There is a great discrepancy between the estimates of the Ministry of Supply and the numbers actually turned out, and that discrepancy would be greater still if it were not for the fact that the War Office are accepting delivery of tanks which are not complete in all respects. Indeed, the position is worse than the figures reveal. So many of our tanks are of doubtful reliability and the programme of spares has been so incompletely carried out, that in various works in the country tanks now in process of erection are taken down in order to provides spares to complete other tanks in the field. In a nutshell, the position is that the numbers which have been promised are inadequate, and even those inadequate promises are not being fulfilled.
I do not think I have said anything that is not pretty well known to the Committee, but it seems to me that I ought to make one or two suggestions for remedying a situation the seriousness of which I leave to the Committee to assess. It is imperative that greater responsibility should be put upon the parent manufacturing concerns. By parent manufacturing concerns I mean those concerns which have the duty of assembling the tank and delivering it to


the War Office in its final and finished form. They are the firms to whom the orders for finished tanks are given. At present, the organisation of the Ministry of Supply is such that the responsibility, instead of lying with these parent manufacturers, lies with a number of departments in the Ministry of Supply designated by elaborate letters and lying about in different parts of the country. I am sure the Committee will agree with me that the Ministry of Supply should so organise their tank production management, that they could help the manufacturers to carry out the job. They should not organise it in such a way as to enable the manufacturer to say, as he can say, that the responsibility for the delay is not his but belongs to somebody else. In this respect it is important that the Ministry should consider whether it would not be desirable drastically to limit or to abolish completely the free issue of the various component parts which the Ministry of Supply now arrange on their own responsibility. The other suggestion is that there should be in the works of each parent company, an engineer in charge of each particular type of tank. He would be a responsible person under the Director of Tank Production. He would look after that particular type of tank, and he would be the focus of interest in respect of everything to do with that type. It would be his duty to act as a kind of "superchaser," to see that his particular type of tank was not being let down—he would, as it were, be the guardian of that tank and care for it as his ward.
The hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson) made some suggestions which have some bearing on this proposal. for an engineer-in-charge. He suggested that there should be set up for the Air Ministry a corps of constructors of the same type as those who now act for the Admiralty, I think there is something to be said for that suggestion being applied to tanks. At present tanks, as finished fighting vehicles, tend to be nobody's business. This is particularly true of the Infantry II tanks. It is nobody's child, and because of this absence of parentage there are avoidable delays in production and many regrettable mistakes. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen mentioned that there were 5,000 modifications in a particular type of tank. I do not think it is right to suggest that

these modifications are primarily due to the War Office or the Ministry of Supply. The responsibility lies with the designers. The design was made before the war, and it was not a good one, in the sense that it was unrelated to commercial practice. The lengthy grinding operations about which he speaks were really the result of inadequate and unco-ordinated design. The main function of the design department is to help manufacturers in the design of tanks and parts of tanks. In that they have not been too successful. Certainly one would expect to find that difficulties which have been previously overcome should not be reproduced in tanks now coming into production. The country has a right to expect something better than repetition of past mistakes. The tanks which the Army are now receiving were mainly designed before the war, and there has been enough time to bring about a higher standard of reliability. The hon. and gallant Member for Hythe (Lieut. Brabner) in his maiden speech dealt with the lack of reliability of tanks used in the 'Middle East. I feel that the Ministry of Supply must urge upon their Design Department the necessity for improving the reliability of the tanks now in service. I appreciate the desirability of increasing public interest in tank production, and it is one of the means that the new Minister in his own inimitable way is using to spur on production But is it necessary to describe a particular type of tank which was in production before the war as our new tank? Will those who know the job and the facts really be stimulated by these highly coloured public statements, many of which are misleading? I doubt it.

Mr. Loftus: In the brief time at my disposal I would like to refer to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards). I feel that those remarks deserve and demand an answer from the Government Bench. Every Member of this House has heard of many cases of skilled fitters standing idle by their machines, not through any fault of their own, but because there is no work to do. That is a most heartbreaking job. To pretend to do work in order to fill in time is bound to affect morale. A great deal can be said for the suggestion that capable inspectors should call unexpectedly at factories


to keep a check on that type of thing. Let us recognise that there are several causes for this gap in production. In many cases it is certainly a result of inefficient management, and in other cases it is due to the supply of raw materials; but there are unavoidable cases where factories are switching over from one type to another. In the last case there must be delay and slackness and insufficient work for the personnel But how are we to deal with that? What happens to-day is that in some factories the men are kept and there is a pretence of doing work. There are odd jobs which the men can do, possibly a little sub-contracting, but the men stand by the machines grousing and condemning the management, imputing that men are being kept in the factory to get extra profits on the plus system. We must stop that.
The appeal I make to the Minister is to instruct factories, where there is a gap of a few days or weeks, not to insist on the men staying by their machines. Let the management take the men into their confidence and say: "Here is an unavoidable gap; it is not our fault. What we propose to do is this. Every man will get his 48-hour guaranteed week's pay. There is no work, and we will not pretend there is. Therefore, half of you will have a fortnight's holiday, and the other half will remain in the factory in case there is work to do." That would be good for the men, and it would improve their morale and physical health, so that when they came back to work you could appeal to them to put in that little extra ounce of energy which makes all the difference. Better still, if there is a short delay, why not tell the men to go out and play cricket or work on their allotments instead of standing-by in this hot weather? They would have their guaranteed week's pay, and when they came back they could put their heart in their work and do their best. I hope the Minister will consider that suggestion.
I wish to refer now to the speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Horabin). I regret that Lord Beaverbrook has not been made Minister of Production, because, quite frankly, I feel that his dynamic energy, plus his powerful position as Minister of

State, may expedite tank production and production of munitions for the Army, at the expense of our vital shipbuilding programme and possibly at the expense of our aircraft production. I think it would have been much better if he had been general Minister of Production allocating supplies; allocating work, and allocating priority to the three Services. We have had a most interesting maiden speech from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hythe (Lieut. Brabner), who pointed out that you could not discuss production or priority until you had decided on your strategy and, because of that, I feel that the atmosphere of this Debate is unreal. You cannot discuss allocation to the Ministry of Aircraft Production or to the Ministry of Supply for the Army or the Admiralty unless you first make up your mind on what branch of the Armed Forces your main concentration is to be. For instance, you cannot possibly really grasp the supply of tanks for the Army until you have made up your mind how big an Army you want and where the Army is to be used.
An hon. Member has suggested that decision is slow in these various Departments. I have heard from manufacturers making for the Admiralty, the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Aircraft Production that the Admiralty inspectors come into a factory and decide on the spot, but the other two Departments have to refer back. Another inspector comes down, and again it is referred back, and so on. Would it not be possible to give the inspectors of either of these two Departments the same power to decide that the Admiralty inspectors have? Behind the Ministry of Supply and the Ministry of Aircraft Production the basis is coal production, and, to speed up your coal production, you need to carry out what is recommended by Sir Francis Joseph in correspondence in "The Times," the setting-up in every coalmine of a canteen to provide the extra meals that the ordinary munition workers get, meals that the workers can take underground. If we want to accelerate coal production, we must make it a matter of priority that every coal mine shall have a canteen to provide that little extra food which the munition worker gets but which the coal miner requires infinitely more.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I ask the indulgence of the Committee because, when this important Debate was first arranged, I expected that my task would have fallen to my right hon. Friend who was then Minister of Supply. Since then certain changes have taken place in the Government which have given me the onerous but honourable duty of representing this great Department in the House of Commons today. It has fallen to me in the course of some 14 months to serve three Ministers of Supply—the present Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and my Noble Friend. I have observed in these statesmen some differences of political background, of administrative methods and perhaps I might even say of temperament, but in one thing they have all agreed, of one truth they have all been persuaded—not merely the magnitude but the urgency of their task. After Dunkirk the Home Secretary's slogan and the fillip which he gave to production are well known. After the Battle of Britain it was the last Minister's daily preoccupation, and, in the light of this sense of urgency, he laid his plans, which are just beginning to bear fruit and will do so with increasing yield every succeeding month. The first quarter of this year showed an increase in the production of both guns and tanks of more than 50 per cent. over the last quarter of 1940, and the second quarter of 1941 shows an increase of more than 100 per cent. over the last quarter of 1940. The same sense of urgency will inspire my Noble Friend. His cry will be, "More shells, more guns, more tanks —above all more tanks."
To-day's Debate—I have listened to all the speeches—has naturally divided itself into two separate streams. There have been questions relating to the Ministry of Supply itself and questions relating to the general organisation of the production Departments, of which the Ministry of Supply is one. Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I deal with these subjects under those two main headings and reply to the criticisms and constructive suggestions which have been made. On each of those large, majestic themes important constructive contributions have been made, and, if I am not able to take up every point in detail, I assure my hon. Friends that their sugges-

tions will be carefully studied. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) who opened the Debate, pointed out the immense magnitude of the task of the Ministry of Supply itself. It is true that its work is divided into two quite separate businesses, the business of the raw material controls and the other central services which the Ministry of Supply performs. Apart from all these central services, the second part of the work of the Ministry is the organisation of production of weapons, ammunition and equipment, either through the ordnance factories or through the main contractors employed by the Ministry. Linked to this is the great question of raw materials, on which I have been glad to hear very little criticism so far. There has been the important question of economy in their use. With the good will of the Service Departments, the late Minister some six months ago appointed in the Ministry of Supply a Director of Economy, and immensely valuable work has been done in the saving of raw materials in every way, by saving in design, by saving in the use by the Service Departments themselves and by careful bringing into really scientific relation the actual demands as experience has shown. A great deal has been done in this direction. More perhaps still remains to be done.
Linked with raw materials is the question of salvage. I expected to have questions raised on it, for it is a common subject for Parliamentary questions, and I do not blame Parliament for being interested, because it is a vital matter. It is also a very difficult question and a rather intractable problem. The local authorities are with increasing effort giving us of their best to bring it up to 100 per cent. efficiency. We had difficulties with the collection of waste food, but I think that the Waste Food Board recently set up under my hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. C. Morrison) is already beginning to get this matter in hand. With regard to the removal of scrap, which is also a subject of frequent questions in the House, I would ask Members to be patient, remembering that it is a problem of labour and transport. If we are to use labour and transport efficiently we must organise the removal of dumps in villages and towns only when they have reached a size and character which will most economically repay the transport put at their disposal.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: What we need an assurance upon is whether the Ministry are aware of the existence of these dumps.

Mr. Macmillan: Of course they are. I would remind Members that it is of vital importance that we should not merely be able to continue to import scrap, but that we should have some reserves at home which can act as it were as strategic reserves for the production of steel.
I come to the question of machine tools and their equipment. On this an interesting speech was made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North West Camberwell (Major O. Guest), who has told me that he is not able to be present while I am speaking. He is excused of any charge of absenteeism, for, after making his speech here, he has returned to his work. The whole problem of the supply of aeroplanes, tanks, guns, munitions of war, ships and transport centres round the provision of machine tools, the equipment used on or with the machine tools, and the provision and training of the labour to use them. We have had to supply all Departments—for this is a central service—with a great complexity of types to the number of many thousands a month tooled to meet the varying types of manufacture. There were two sources from which machine tools and their equipment could be obtained—our normal machine tool factories at home and importation from America. At the outbreak of war the machine-tool industry was already working at high pressure, and immediately after the war it was decided to extend it still further. We had to balance the requirements of industry with the need of providing plant to bring about an expansion of the country's capacity to produce machine tools, and to-day the output of the machine-tool industry is six times that of the normal peace-time level.
As important as the machine tools is the equipment, and at the same time we have had to make provision and have made provision for the supplying of jigs, gauges and small tools. We have enormously increased the capacity of the firms that specialise in that work, and at the same time we have enormously increased the capacity of the engineering firms themselves to make this equipment in their own tool rooms. There has been

a parallel expansion in the tool rooms of the engineering firms and in the new works especially delegated for the sole production of machine-tool equipment. In spite of all these efforts, we have, partly because the total volume was not sufficient and partly because of the character of the specialised machines which could only be imported, had to rely upon our American friends. All through these months we have worked closely hand in hand with the American Government. We have had the most understanding assistance from the American authorities, including the Army and Navy. We are now perhaps in a position to reciprocate what they have done for us, because our demands are becoming smaller. There are certain specialised machines we shall still require, but we shall be able to make smaller demands on their production, thus releasing it for a production which we hope will be to our ultimate benefit. It is, perhaps, a picture of the degree to which the machine-tool problem has been tackled that we have already been able to swing over machine-tool producing capacity from the production of tools proper to the production of jigs, gauges and equipment. As the war goes on, we shall reduce the production of machinery and increase the capacity for producing the equipment which is always needed and without which machine tools are of no value to the engineer.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Can my hon. Friend indicate why in so many cases firms, other than Royal Ordnance factories, are not adopting the night shift system?

Mr. Macmillan: I will come to that point later. I have dealt with the centralised functions of the Ministry of Supply—raw materials, the provision of machine tools and the service which it performs on behalf of the production ministries. May I come to its immediate duty, the production of weapons and equipment through the Ordnance factories, for which we are solely responsible, and through contractors? I had feared at one time that the Ruling of the Chair meant that this Debate might become a debate on labour and might result in a series of mutual recriminations and accusations of incompetence between Members whose sympathy is mainly attracted to one or the other of the sides of industry. Fortunately, that has not been so to-day, and


I hope that it will never be so, because the tendency in the Press and the country in this direction is not a healthy one and is not a very valuable one. Exaggerated statements about wilful absenteeism on the one side and negligence or inability to promote the production effort on the other can do nothing but harm. Let management and labour continue as they are doing in 99 cases out of 100 and concentrate upon the enormous task which lies before them. To the extent that there are complaints and criticism, which I certainly do not resent, let them be put upon the broad, hardened backs of His Majesty's Government. I am sure that that agreeable task will be much less dangerous to production and may be of greater value in the long run. I would only say that generalised criticism is not much help to His Majesty's Government. If we can get criticism directed to a special service or establishment, it makes it easier to institute an inquiry.
It would be out of order for me to refer to this subject except in so far as through the Ordnance factories, and our responsibility for our contractors we obviously are interested in the whole problem of labour utilisation. I was struck by the words used by my hon. Friend who opened the Debate, when he said, "Let us hear a little more of the men who do the job—the foremen, the production managers, the skilled men in the factories. Let praise be given there, much less than to some of those who are more in the public eye. "I think my Noble Friend has the genius for striking that note. We are all" the boys in the back room "now, and I think it is just that recognition of where the actual work is done that is an important part of the propaganda for war production.
With regard to the factories under our control, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), in a very impressive speech, told us that the temper of industry was in danger of becoming sour. I look to him to help us in curing that. The degree of acidity which is generated depends partly upon personalities. If he continues his power to spread what Matthew Arnold used to call "sweetness and light," I am sure he will be very well employed. I admit at once that there have been mistakes, difficulties— follies if you like—but who has ever

attempted to build up an organisation of this kind on so great a scale in so short a time and has avoided all mistakes?
In ordinary private enterprise it is regarded as quite a good achievement to have built up over a long period of years a business employing 5,000, 10.000, or 20,000 men and after long experiments in management, in selecting the right people and all the rest of it. We have had to do this work quickly. We must recognise also the difficulties which confront us. The recruitment for the factories—I think this explains the reference by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Horabin) to a speech by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour—depends not merely on the amount of labour available but on the power of any individual factory to take that labour as the factory comes into production. It cannot take to-day the whole of the labour which will be its final complement. The labour must come in at a rate at which it can be trained and got into work. The Ministry of Labour, through a special scheme which was launched for us during the last three months, has, broadly speaking, with, possibly, one exception, been able to provide us with labour at a rate appropriate to our power to absorb it. In the six months between January and June we have more than doubled the labour force employed in the ordnance factories— mechanical, filling and explosive. The Committee would not expect me to give in public the total of those employed.

Mr. Stokes: The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Horabin) referred to a speech by the Minister of Labour in which he said we had a million people available for factory work and asked whether that was true or not.

Mr. Macmillan: He was quoting from a speech in which the Minister said he had a million people registered. I was only saying that the rate of intake must have relation to the technical power to build up production. We have had great difficulties, and we admit them, with what I would call the human side operating these new undertakings, and we have now???

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I must intervene. I think the Committee ought to be put right upon one point. What I said in my speech was that I had registered one million women,


but that it was rather striking to note how few of them there were who were not already on national work. That is quite a different story.

Mr. Macmillan: One of the chief contributions which my right hon. Friend who is now the President of the Board of Trade was able to make in his time was to put all the filling factories on to a three eight-hour-shift basis. Already we have all the explosive factories upon a three eight-hour-shift basis, but we have not been able to change the mechanical factories on to that basis, although we are hoping for and contemplating such a change. With the help of my hon. Friend the Minister for Works and Buildings and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, who is going to provide the labour, we hope to have a great scheme of hostels and married quarters accommodation, which we must have before the winter sets in if we are to keep our factories properly employed and our people happy. We hope to have accommodation for some 60,000 men and women in our hostels, and to provide accommodation for 7,000 in married quarters. Rather than waste time trying to build up anew organisation within the Ministry we have entrusted the management of these hostels to organised agencies which are well acquainted with that art, and the Y.M.C.A., the Y.W.C.A., the Holiday Fellowship, the Co-operative Holiday Association, and the Workers' Travel Association, will on our behalf and as agents undertake the actual management of these hostels.
Then we come to the problems, some of which were touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly, in labour management itself, the avoiding of the friction and mistakes which must sometimes occur but ought to be reduced to the minimum. We have felt that the technical tasks entrusted to the Director-General of Ordnance Factories made it impossible for him or his technical staff to undertake this work themselves, and we have therefore appointed for this work an officer, and under him a number of superintendent labour management officers. I prefer the phrase "labour management" to the word "welfare," with its somewhat restricted and patronising appeal. I mean labour management in the broad sense in which it has been practised in recent years by all the most progressive companies. We have been

fortunate in obtaining for these posts men and women who have had experience in large industries and who have been lent to us for the purpose.
Finally, we have tried to grapple with what was last winter one of the worst problems from the labour point of view, the transport problem. Whether these new factories were well sited or badly sited is not now worth arguing. They are built. Whether too much care and attention were given to the. danger factor and to placing them far away from great centres of population it is not for me to say, and, of course, what seemed likely to be a danger area a year or two before the war may not have proved to be so in the actual developments of the war. But there they are, and if we are to make the best use of them, it is the transport of the workers to and from them which is the major problem. I believe that in open Session we are not allowed to refer to the weather, but in the middle of last winter there was a period in which there was some snow upon the ground, and undoubtedly there was a breakdown in some respects. My right hon. Friend thereupon laid the foundations of an organisation which would be capable of dealing with this problem. We borrowed from the Canadian Pacific Railway, by the good will of its president, a distinguished traffic officer. We have set up a system of factory transport, with officers at the centre and in each factory, and I think we can say that by rail and bus and all the methods available to us we have got on top of the job.
With one or two parts of the country we still have some difficulty, but it is nothing to what it was. We are convinced that we are on top of the difficulty and" can overcome it. We have built up a system of internal transport in the larger factories which will very much relieve the worker, from the outer platform where he arrives to the place where he actually works. This service is available not only to the Ordnance factories but to any factories that ask for our help. Where a factory is working with as many as 5,000 people we station a permanent officer to look after transport problems.
Now I come to the question raised in the Debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir A. Maitland). Are we satisfied with the use of the second shift and the use of our machine tools?


Are we getting the full amount out of the existing plant? Those questions have been in everybody's mind, and we have asked them of ourselves and tried to improve all the time. Of course, we are not satisfied, but we must not put impossible targets in front of ourselves. Double shirts for the whole engineering industry would be an impossible target because they would take a figure of additional employment quite outside what we should be likely to achieve.

Mr. Stokes: Did not the hon. Gentleman say something just now about having treble shifts?

Mr. Macmillan: There is very little treble-shift work, except in those types of production for which it is most suitable. Filling factories are not mechanical engineering plants. It would be quite impossible to fill such a demand immediately. The most important thing is to concentrate upon the parts of the programme where it is absolutely vital to push forward at the greatest speed. It is very dangerous to use the figure of employment on the second shift in order to compare it with the figure of employment on the day shift. There are many men, such as maintenance men, who are employed during the day and who would not normally be employed at night, even if the second shifts were working. The production factor is the important figure. The amount of skilled labour in the country cannot rapidly be increased. It is almost fixed, and the problem of bringing unskilled labour into the industry depends upon two main factors.
The first of these factors is the degree to which the piece of work in question has been designed from the start as a mass-production job. In the newer factories, set up when the present size and kind of Army was contemplated, that has been done. These factories were designed and organised so that the work could be done by unskilled people and as a mass-production job, but this is not true of some of the older works which were not so designed. The second factor is the degree to which we can improve the actual utilisation of skilled men. You can employ unskilled and semi-skilled people only under the leadership of the skilled. The problem of getting a better use of unskilled and semi-skilled labour lies in more

skilful use of the skilled men. Some firms have been pioneers in that respect Their proportion of skilled men to semi-skilled is a very small one and they have done very good work. Others have been laggard. We have to put the maximum support we can in the production Ministries and the Ministry of Labour, and the maximum pressure upon our contractors, to go on with this system of reducing the ratio of skilled men in order to make the use of unskilled labour available and attract the great army of the unskilled and the semiskilled, who can be employed only under the guardianship of the skilled men.
I have dealt with many of the points that have been raised and now I want to say a word on the very important point of continuity of orders. This was raised by the hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs), but the example he gave was something a little different. He said that a firm he knew had received instructions to do the job but had not yet received the completed contract. That is a very common position. The instructions to proceed are regarded as the legally binding contract, and the elaborate contract, with its phraseology so beloved of lawyers, comes along later. Nobody takes much notice of that part of the process.

Mr. Higgs: I referred to a period of four months.

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir, but that does not affect the result. It is a well-known practice to operate upon the instructions to proceed. Changes in design and in the service required are responsible largely for lack of continuity of orders. We are producing for the purpose of making the kind of weapon we want and not merely to get a nice flow of production. We can do far better than we have done. We are always pressing our Departments to adopt the principle that where there is a known job there should be continuity of order or, what is better still, an order to produce at a certain rate till further orders. If we are to keep the high quality of design by which alone we can make up for our numerical inferiority there must be changes and improvements, which may have the effect of temporarily interrupting the flow of production.

Major-General Sir Frederick Sykes: Would my hon. Friend say something about planning?

Mr. Macmillan: The difficulty in some cases is that of purchasing far enough ahead. It is not always possible to say that the exact amount of raw material will be in the right place every day. During peace-time we do not operate within that narrow margin. Great industries invest large sums of money in stocks to ensure a flow of production, even when there is no black-out, no blitz, and no interference to the transport. We find it more profitable to buy our stocks to continue the flow of production than to rely upon buying from hand to mouth. In war-time the raw material is used right up to the hilt, and we work on very narrow margins. The men should be told. They should be given an opportunity to understand that we are bound to get temporary breaks. I will summarise it in this way: The flow of production must occasionally be interrupted. It is the almost inevitable result of the urge to produce more. We have to smash bottlenecks, but we also create them; it is very easy to obtain a perfectly balanced production at a very low level—complete balance is obtained at zero, and, if I may say so, the most perfect balance of all is death.
The Ministry is sometimes censured for being slow in adopting new processes and new inventions. A reference was made to that by one hon. Gentleman to-day. A Select Committee recently referred to a specific case of our malpractice, an important, but not vital one, a method alleged to lengthen the durability of boots by putting a particular preparation on them. I will not deal with that, for it is still under experiment, but I would ask the Committee to remember that the course we have to steer on the question of new inventions is not an easy one. Behind the inventor there frequently lurks a company promoter; indeed sometimes the two figures are combined in the same man. We have to be neither too rigid nor too elastic. We do not want to miss a good thing, but we do not want to be had for "mugs." We have to remember that any process which is accepted and approved by the Ministry, if it is in the hands of the wrong kind of people, may easily be used for the purpose of using our hall-mark to help a satisfactory flotation in New York. If anyone is really dissatisfied with the important work of scientific invention and discovery, although I may not refer to it in detail

in open Session, I suggest that he should put his mind to the question of how rapidly the means were found and brought into production for dealing with some of the lurking dangers which came with the blitz last Autumn. Inventions were found and put into production by the skill of our scientific investigators. And in many cases I regret to say lives were lost in the work.
I would like to take the opportunity of congratulating the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hythe(Lieutenant Brabner) on the very charming speech which he made in to-day's Debate. The House always likes to hear a maiden speech, more particularly in time of war, from an officer in His Majesty's uniform, recently returned from those operations with which we are here concerned. I was very much impressed by his speech, and I know it will receive the careful study of Ministers far above me in the hierarchy of power, because he raised a good number of matters connected with the wider strategical questions which, of course, could not come within my ambit. He made a reference to the immense importance of the anti-aircraft gun of all kinds, and, of course, we are doing everything we can to press on with its production. I cannot give figures, but I can say that the present production of antiaircraft guns was determined by the Defence Committee of the Cabinet in August of last year, and it covered deliveries expected until November of this year. In spite of some set-backs last autumn, we stand by our estimates and forecast, and we believe we can substantially improve upon them. But when it comes to the allocation and use of these weapons, that is not in our sphere at all. It is in our sphere to make them, but when it comes to allocating them among the many strategical and practical purposes, that is a matter for the Defence Committee and for the Chiefs of Staffs concerned. The hon. and gallant Member also referred to anti-tank weapons, and again I can only make a brief and carefully studied reference. I believe the Army is satisfied with the types and performance of the weapons they have had, both for use in tanks and in formations, and I believe they will be still more satisfied with the weapons which are on the point of production. As regards deliveries, the whole effort of the Department under my Noble


Friend, as under his predecessor, will be to press forward with its production.
My hon. Friend who opened the Debate made some references to the organisation of the Ministry, and I think that quite by mistake her at her unnecessarily painted a picture of great confusion. The organisation of the Ministry, so far as tank production is concerned, is not at all the concern of the Director of Programmes. The "Director-General of Programmes" is a pompous way of describing a statistical Directorate which serves the Minister by telling him what the programmes are, what he is going to do and what is going on. The actual tank programme, as is the production of weapons, is under a separate heading: Sir James Lithgow is Controller-General of Mechanical Equipment, Mr. Burton is in charge of all the production side, and Mr. James Weir is in charge of all designs and development. The Tank Board are advisory and not executive. The Army do not make modifications in design; the whole responsibility for design and development is under an officer who is a servant of the Ministry of Supply. The Tank Board, upon which the Army is represented, may make non-technical modifications or may request that a certain service need should be met, and it is then the duty of the design department to try and translate this into designs.
I would like to tell the Committee quite frankly that there is really not the confusion which the hon. Member suggests. We are now trying to make tanks of very clearly defined and settled designs. I think the best comparison would be to compare them with ships, and say that we are now manufacturing two types of battle-cruiser, two types of cruiser and one dreadnought, and that is all. I think it would be quite a good analogy to say that they are for the purposes indicated by these descriptions of ships. With regard to our orders in the United States, we are relying upon one type and one type only, which is in process of production. It is, of course, the purpose of my Noble Friend to press on with the production of tanks with all his power, not, however, at the expense of other weapons, and, I certainly believe, not at the expense of the other Services. He has far too many memories of his work at the Ministry of Aircraft Production to allow this particular drive to interfere in

any way, but tanks we must have, tanks we shall have, and we rely upon the designers and the workmen together to push our production during the next few weeks and months.
I come now to the last part of my task, which is to answer those questions not related to the Ministry of Supply in its immediate special responsibility, but as part of the Government's organisation for production as a whole. Many hon. Members have referred to this question as to the machinery of Government and have expressed a desire for a greater coordination of that machinery. Some of them expressed the view that my Noble Friend ought to be appointed Minister of Production. I shall certainly convey that opinion to my Noble Friend, and I have no doubt it will give him great gratification, but the Committee will recognise that there is nothing very much that I can do about it.

Mr. Mander: Is any member of the War Cabinet going to reply on that point?

Mr. Macmillan: I shall not be expected to reply for a member of the War Cabinet, nor, at five minutes' notice, when winding up the Debate for the day. That brings me to what I was going to try to do in a few minutes, that is, to try and disprove this popular fallacy that there is complete" disorder in production and a completely wild competitive system going on between Departments. We often see it in the Press. It just is not true. On the problem of priorities, I must keep clear of the vexed question, argued for months now, with almost theological bitterness, though I think it is true that these arguments are rather dying away and seem almost as foolish as the debates of the medieval school men. I know it has been said that during last year the 1 a priority given to the Ministry of Aircraft Production caused confusion to manufacturers and unnecessary injury to other Supply Departments. I am not going to attempt to deliver a judgment on that point. I have not been able to consult my Noble Friend, but I feel no hesitation in giving to the Committee a positive assurance that from now on, at any rate, this special bias in favour of the Ministry of Aircraft Production is not likely to continue.
Seriously, the real answer to this is that this movement towards a centralised


machine of government is going on all the time, and has gone further than most people recognise. There are three methods by which we have been, in fact, creating a Ministry of Munitions all the time. I would ask the Committee to allow me to give some details, dull but important. First, by central purchase of stores by one Department on behalf of all. It is not generally recognised how far that process has gone. The responsibility of the Ministry of Supply goes far beyond responsibility for the Army. We manufacture a large proportion of naval guns, and some anti-aircraft guns and spare barrels for the Navy, rifles and revolvers for the three Services, all automatic rifles and, with a few exceptions, all small arms ammunition for all the three Services. We are responsible for the filling of all ammunition and bombs, all high-explosive bombs for the Air Force, explosives for all propellants, and all the wheeled vehicles for all Service and Civil needs, including, under arrangements recently made, spare parts for vehicles already in private hands. Under mutually agreed arrangements which have gradually been built up, we have undertaken on behalf of the Air Force and the Army and the Navy the purchase of all the woollen fabrics, cotton fabrics, boots, shoes, underwear, hand-tools, cordage and many general stores. In addition we are buying for the Air Force their uniforms, hats, clothing, medical and surgical supplies, and camp equipment. We supply steel helmets for all Services, civilian as well as the fighting Services, and have made steady progress towards unified buying. On the whole, there is one Department making the purchase of goods on behalf of the three Services. We have purposely gone at a steady rate in order not to put too heavy a strain on the administrative machine which had to undertake this enormous task.
The second method is that by which, although contracts are still in the name of the three Service Departments, the planning of the job is done by one Ministry on behalf of all—what I would call a centrally controlled plan of production. Under that method, the Ministry of Supply has undertaken responsibility for wheeled vehicles, cranes, static internal combustion engines and pumps. The Admiralty has undertaken chain cables. The process is continually being studied

by the committee of the Production Executive, over which I preside, and the list of products so treated is growing. Whenever we find an industry overloaded, we call the Departments together, and arrange that one of them, usually the greatest user, shall undertake planned buying on behalf of all. One of the most interesting developments in this direction has recently taken place in respect of automatic rifles and guns, whether they are made for the Air Force, for the Navy, or for the Army. Twenty different types of rifles, revolvers and automatic guns of all designs are now under a single specialised control. The hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) is the chairman of the Board which deals with this matter. All those guns to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hythe referred come under that Board, which is a very interesting experiment in co-ordination, since it consists of the leading manufacturers, under an independent chairman. The contractors represented include the Director-General of Ordnance Factories. The Departments are also represented. The idea is that the buying should be done for all those classes of weapons as a co-operative enterprise, so avoiding some of those difficulties which have arisen through each Department acting separately.
I have described the first method, which is that of central purchase, and the second method, which is that of co-ordinated planned buying. Thirdly, there is in the case of raw materials of all kinds a system of allocation by a Committee presided over by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport. All Departments come to this Committee, and allocations are made for each quarter in respect of all materials of all kinds. There is no competition, and no disorder.

Mr. Garro Jones: Does the Ministry of War Transport now occupy a position in the priority scheme?

Mr. Macmillan: No. We preferred a certain amount of common sense to unreasonable following of rules. My right hon. and gallant Friend has done this job for 18 months, and has done it exceedingly well. Just because he has had a change in his other ordinary work, it is not reasonable to say that he should not go on doing this work of sitting as a judge, so to speak, on allocations for the Departments.


Finally, there is the allocation of industrial capacity. By arrangement, one Ministry can take, say, 60 per cent. of a firm's production, and another Ministry 40 per cent. These products can be reallocated and re-entered, and in case of doubt the firm can apply to the regional officers for guidance. I have attempted to cover a great deal of ground, but I think I have dealt with some of the criticisms. I have tried to describe the central machinery for giving harmony to the needs of the three Fighting Services. In all these matters the Board of Trade also receives an allocation, to meet the civilian needs of the country. I have told the Committee of the growth of a variety of methods, apart from the general supervision of the Production Executive, to reach that ideal.
Perhaps in order to complete the picture I may say a word or two about the regional production boards. The more we can get manufacturers to use them, the better work they will do. The essential purpose and object of the regional board is not so much to deal with the main contractors, the great businesses, but to arrange the use of the capacity of the small men. In London there are several of them operating like telephone exchanges, where a roan who has unused capacity available can be put into touch with the man who requires it. That is spreading throughout the country. The object is to organise continually to see whether it is possible that when machines are unused, those who have the unused capacity can be put into touch with those who need it. Time is of the essence of this business, unless it is done in two or three days, a week's or a fortnight's work has gone.
I have thought it wise to attempt to convey to the Committee an impression of the vast organisation that is required for the planning of production. It is a subject which I tried in the old days to study in theory. During the past year I have learnt something of the difficulties of putting it into practice. We have been faced with the task of converting the whole economic organisation of the country from a basis on which it was regulated by the pull and push of the price system to an economy in which every consideration must be subordinated to the maximum production of weapons of war.
We are confronted with an enemy who devoted himself to this very task for a large number of years and achieved it by ruthless means, overthrowing as he went everything that matters in the social life of a country. It may be that we move slowly, but I am convinced that we are building upon a more secure foundation. The organisation we are producing is built upon the solid rock of democratic consent, and it will perhaps endure when the harder and more brutal Nazi totalitarianism has cracked under the stress of modern war.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.— [Major Dugdale.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL DEFENCE (BILLETING ALLOWANCES).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Major Dugdale.]

Mr. Daggar: When I raised the question of the need for an increase in the billeting allowances on the 12th of last month, I intimated that such an increase was necessary upon the ground that there had been a considerable increase in the cost of living. With characteristic flippancy the Minister of Health observed that he was not sure that that increase was so considerable. I submit that that was an observation typical of the many with which we became familiar when he occupied the office of Minister of Labour.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Major Dugdale.]

Mr. Daggar: It was an observation which was superficially smart without being really clever. If it is not considerable, perhaps the Minister can tell us what is the difference between the cost of living on 4th September, 1939, when the first billeting rate was fixed and the cost of living on 1st June last year, when the billeting allowances, as far as I have


been able to ascertain, were first increased? I submit that these statistics are necessary in order to show that if the increase in the cost of living which took place in that period justified an increase in the billeting allowances, so does the increase that has taken place in the cost of living since June, 1940, warrant another improvement in the billeting allowances. Otherwise, we must conclude that, had the Minister then been Minister of Health, no increase would have been made in the allowances of 1st June last year.
What are the figures? In September, 1939, the cost of living figure for all items, compared with July, 191:4, was 55; in June, 1940, when the first increase in billeting allowances was made the figure was 81. That is a difference of 26 points. Food alone shows a difference of 20 points and clothing shows a difference of no less than 77 points. In June of this year, as far as I have been able to ascertain, the figures by the same method of calculation, compared with June, 1940, show the increase in the cost of living for all items to be 19 points. Food shows an increase of 13 points and clothing 77 points. It is interesting to observe that during the two periods the cost of clothing has increased by precisely the same figure—77 points. From the point of view of the increase in the cost of living, if the first increase in billeting allowances was justified upon the basis it is incumbent upon the right hon. Gentleman to prove that the demand we are now making should not be met by a similar increase because of the cost of clothing having been raised by 77 points. There is no Member in this House, with the exception of the Minister, who would not admit that that item is important. On the question of food it is true that the difference as shown between the period June, 1940, and May of this year is seven points, but for all items, the difference is also seven points and no one can reasonably argue that because there is this difference in the second period compared with the first period, the billeting allowances should not be increased.
As I have shown, the cost of living has increased by 19 points for all items, with food showing an increase of 13 points and clothing 77 points. I want to make it clear that I am quoting the May figures, and as far as I can judge, and as far as

any of us is entitled to anticipate or predict —which is a very unpleasant pastime even for a politician—the June figures will be worse. In his reply to my Question on 12th June, the Minister said:
I have replied to the Ebbw Vale Urban District Council that increases have twice been made in the rates of billeting allowances since they were first settled."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th June, 1941; col. 316, Vol. 372.]
Is that statement correct? My knowledge of the subject is that the first rate was fixed on 4th September, 1939. one day after the declaration of war by the Government, and that it remained unaltered until 1st June of last year, and that the change then made still exists. Moreover, the change made on 1st June of last year placed the evacuees in various categories according to their ages. In point of fact, whether one child or more than one child was taken, the rates were not varied. The rate was, and still is, 10s. 6d. a week for one child, and for each additional child 8s. 6d. a week. I realise the ease with which the Minister could defend even those rates, because he has without difficulty defended an even smaller allowance, plus visits to the public assistance committees, in the case of the old age pensioners. The Minister said that in his view the billeting allowances were generally adequate. That statement was not original, because the right hon. Gentleman has said it about almost every payment made by the State. I would remind him that recently advances have been made in regard to unemployment standard benefit, assistance board allowances, soldiers', sailors' and airmen's allowances, dependants' allowances, and old age pensions. The billeting allowances for persons other than those I have mentioned are as follow: ten years and under 14 years, 10s. 6d. a week; 14 years and under 16 years, 12s. 6d. a week, and 16 years and over 15s. a week. To describe those rates as adequate is to reduce their defence to an absurdity.
Finally, let me quote to the right hon. Gentleman some observations of a very capable ex-billeting officer who, when he was so acting, was also accountant for the Abertillery District Council. He points out that in some instances there is what might be described as neglect on the part of parents of the evacuees, and that the official machinery to meet these


needs is still slow and unsatisfactory. He points out, as must be appreciated and recognised by all hon. Members, that the people with whom the evacuees are living feel that the evacuees should be dressed in the same way as their own children, and that on Sundays they should have a change of clothing and, as far as possible and practicable, that the Sunday clothing should be superior to the clothing worn on any other day of the week. I think that, far from discouraging the foster parents to perform this service in the interest of the evacuees, we should encourage them to do so by giving them an increase in the billeting allowances, consequent upon the increase in the cost of living.
The ex-billeting officer also points out that there are minor ailments from which these children suffer, such as colds and many other complaints which affect them, especially having regard to their recent experiences. Here, again, is an instance where, in virtue of the fact that they are members of the same household, money is spent on doctors' bills and "also on medicine. He observes also that the boys and girls over 16 years of age are obviously much more expensive to keep because their tastes and needs are much more expensive than those of the younger children, and he states that 15s. per week, in view of the increase in the cost of living which has taken place since the alteration of these allowances on 1st June, last year, is inadequate for this purpose. Then, again, there are many pers6ns with whom these evacuees are living who are, naturally, anxious that their children and the evacuees should not be separated, particularly on Saturdays, when there are shows in the local cinemas. There is also the question of providing some kind of confectionery. All these items add to the expense. All I need say now, and much more could be said by other Members, is that I trust this House will not be satisfied with a negative reply from the Ministry upon this question of increasing the billeting allowances. While I anticipate that we shall not get anything to-day, I want to intimate to the House the imperative need for insisting that the Government shall improve the lot, not only of the evacuees, but of these persons who have shown their appreciation of the suffering endured by the parents of these children

and who are under no obligation whatever.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): I am quite sure the House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar), as indeed I am, for raising this very important subject. It is important from more than one point of view. I am very glad he has raised it, coming as he does from an industrial area. It is one of the great problems connected with this vast revolution which we call evacuation—the change of surroundings, the change of the normal habits of life, and the burden, as my hon. Friend rightly called it, which has been placed on the shoulders of the foster parents of unaccompanied children. There are 500,000 unaccompanied children, for whom I am responsible, in the reception areas. I am glad the matter has been raised here again—it cannot be raised too often—in order to point out to the country, and to the parents in the evacuation areas whose children are evacuated, how difficult a problem it is to solve, how much progress is being made with it, and what a debt of gratitude the country owes and the parents of the children owe to the housewives on whose behalf this plea is made. I will not debate with my hon. Friend about the past. If anyone takes the trouble to go through the records and add up the amount of gain in one way and another to the social services for which I am responsible, I think two things will be found: First, steady and sustained improvement, and, secondly, always of course the plea that more ought to have been done. I will just leave it at that.
I am quite sure the last thing the Government want, and my hon. Friend wants, and, I am equally sure, the last thing the parents of the children want, is political controversy about this great social revolution. What we want to do is to take the revolution—and it is a revolution—and consider where it has been successful and where it has not been successful. Instead of discussing it merely from one point of view we should take the problem as a whole, including the particular point raised by my hon. Friend.
He asked about the alterations. There have been two alterations. The last, to which he referred, was the revision of rates all round, but previous to that, on 2nd March, 1940, there was a very big


alteration which went almost unperceived. Whereas the first 10s. 6d. scale of October, 1939, applied to all children over 16, the second alteration, a very big one From the point of view of the housewife, lowered the age limit from 16 to 14, showing that the Government were alive, through their day-to-day contacts in the areas and through representations made to them by local authorities' billeting officers and by individuals—to say nothing of their regional staffs—to the needs of the children's welfare. So on 31st May, 1940, there was a revision of rates. The present rates are not an easy thing to debate. If I read out a complete schedule of rates of all kinds, it would take a very long time. It is a long and complicated schedule. Leaving out all other priority classes, let us take the unaccompanied children, those for whom particularly, though not exclusively, the hon. Member has been speaking. There are now in England and Wales 500,000 unaccompanied children living in other people's houses, and the present scale of allowances means that, allowing for repayment, the State is paying a gross figure of about £260,000 a week, £200,000 a week net, or £10,000,000 a year. It is in that setting that we have to see the efforts that are being made by the State to meet the needs of the housewives who billet children and of the children themselves. The hon. Member confined himself, though he need not have done, to the cost-of-living index. No one will object to that, except to point out that it is an index, and no more. Secondly, he laid more stress on clothing than on any other item in the sum total of the factors that go to make up the index.

Mr. Daggar: That is not quite correct. I am sorry if I gave that impression. I emphasised the increase in the cost of living with regard to clothing because the figures are identical in the two periods.

Mr. Brown: I am glad that we have cleared that up. It is useful to a Minister to see the picture as Members of the House see it and to estimate whether or not they are doing what the country wishes done. It is a heavy responsibility that is placed upon Ministers. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member talk about the cost of medicines, because special arrangements are made for the children as regards doctoring. If he has any particular case

in mind, I hope he will let me know, because I think there must be some misunderstanding. Arrangements are made for medical attention for the children under our care in all the reception areas. I have been receiving representations on the point raised by my hon. Friend. One of the facts which a Minister has to take into account in judging whether a change is necessary is not only the cost-of-living index, but what those who have to face the real problem of seeing the change successfully applied, and of looking after the welfare of the children, have to say about it. I have taken some little trouble in the last four months to pay regular and constant visits at week-ends to every one of the regions, and I have given half my time there to the reception side of the problem. At the moment I have only a very few individual requests making the plea, which was made also by various local authorities and billeting officers, that in present circumstances—my hon. Friends will remember that my answer said, "at present "—

Mr. Kirkwood: What does that mean?

Mr. Brown: That if circumstances change, I might give a very different answer. I think that is the right attitude for a Minister to take, and that he should not have a closed mind on a social problem of this magnitude. The smallest number of representations have come from individuals, and they are very few indeed. I have had a certain number of representations from individual billeting authorities and their chief officers. It may surprise the House to know that there are 1,000 authorities in England and Wales. It is a formidable number, and I think that many people do not realise how many and varied those authorities are. Out of 1,000 authorities I have received representations from 60. My hon. Friends who represent Welsh constituencies, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Sir C. Edwards), whom we are all glad to see back after his illness, will be interested to know that 42 are English authorities and 18 Welsh. The resolutions of a certain number of authorities are what one may call "snowball" resolutions. One interesting thing is that a number of authorities sent me resolutions supporting a resolution of the Porthcawl authority, but I have not yet received Porthcawl's


resolution. Something has evidently gone wrong with that "snowball."

Mr. Bernard Taylor: Those authorities that sent on the Porthcawl resolution gave it due consideration.

Mr. Brown: I am not belittling them at all, for it is obvious that an authority would not send an agreement with a resolution without considering it; indeed, they might find it more convenient to approve the terms of such a resolution than to draft another one in a slightly different form.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Of the 42 English authorities, how many were large counties and how many smaller boroughs?

Mr. Brown: I have a schedule here, for one of the elements to be considered in forming a judgment must be the kind of authority which is sending a resolution. It is a point that weighs with me that some of these authorities are not the normal authorities that send resolutions. They are small rural authorities. The first on my list, for example, came from the billeting officer of the Wycombe Rural District Council. It is an interesting one, because it conveys the opinion expressed at a meeting of voluntary billeting officers in that district. I cannot in this short speech go into all the details, although they would be very interesting, and they are very varied. On the whole, my judgment would be from my analysis of the 60 that they come from the smaller rather than the larger areas. As a Minister I should give added weight to that point, because these are not authorities which normally take part in movements of this kind, and it shows that in those areas, at any rate, there is feeling on the issue. There are 60 out of 1,000.

Mr. Lipson: For how many children are they responsible?

Mr. Brown: I could not answer that without notice. Five or six resolutions came from my hon. Friend's division, and

others from the division of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards), one or two from Carmarthenshire, two from Merioneth, and others from Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Lincoln, Hertfordshire, Gloucestershire. Devonshire, Derbyshire, Cornwall, Cheshire and Cumberland. The House will see that it is a varied list. With regard to the point about the cost of living, when the Government decided to make the first revision it was felt that we had taken a big step by lowering the age. When the second revision was made, it was made not simply on the basis of the cost of living, but because at that time in 1940 my predecessor was facing a very difficult problem in the very heavy drift back. It was with that very heavy drift back in mind, and not merely on arithmetical calculations about the cost of living, that he proposed the revision which produced the present scale. I will give the cost-of-living figures in my last sentence or two. In September, 1939, the scale was 55 points above the 1914 figure, on 1st January, 1940, it was 74, on 1st June it was 81, on 1st January, 1941, 96, on 1st May, 100, and on 1st Tune it was also 100.
As for the prices of food alone, there has been some slight reduction in the last six months. For 1st September, 1939, the figure was 38 per cent. above that of July, 1914. The figure for 1st January, 1940, was 57 per cent., for 1st June 58 per cent., for 1st January, 1941, 72 per cent., and for 1st May 71 per cent. I can tell the House that the figure recorded by the Ministry of Labour for 1st June will be one point less than that. I am glad that my hon. Friend raised these matters. The House may be sure that I will keep the matter constantly under review. My only desire will be to reconcile the over whelming obligations that the country has in other directions with the welfare of the people in this new and very difficult situation.

It being the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House, MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.